Shanmugam Vs The Sub-Registrar

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in P/I-Joint Sub Registrar Pudukkottai/44/2026 dated 06.02.2026 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register and release the sale deed in Doc. No. TP/249251202/2026 dated 06.02.2026 kept pending in P/I-Joint Sub Registrar Pudukkottai/44/2026 forthwith.

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

WP(MD). No.3974 of 2026

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar, For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Spl. Govt. Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order

¶16

dated 06.02.2026 passed by the respondent.

¶17

2 . By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final

¶18

disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has presented a sale deed dated 06.02.2026 for registration. However, without registering the said document, the respondent passed the impugned order stating that additional time was required to peruse the document and, therefore, kept it pending. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

WP(MD). No.3974 of 2026

¶23

4 . The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

¶24

the respondent would submit that the petitioner is residing in natham property and thoraya patta has also been granted in respect of the property. Therefore, the Tahsildar has raised an objection to the registration of the document.

¶25

5. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned

¶26

counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on records.

¶27

6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that a thoraya patta was initially issued to one Premalatha. The said Premalatha sold the subject property to the petitioner’s vendor. The petitioner has now purchased the property from his vendor. Therefore, though the property is classified as natham property, once permission has been granted to occupy and enjoy the same, it is not proper for the Tahsildar to raise objections to the registration of the sale deed. If the authorities intend to recover the property on the ground that it is a natham property, they must take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Without initiating such

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

WP(MD). No.3974 of 2026

¶31

proceedings, the respondent cannot refuse to register the sale deed and keep the document as pending on the ground that additional time is required to peruse the document, which is improper. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order.

¶32

7. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to register the sale deed dated 06.02.2026, within 48 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a report before this Court on 26.02.2026.

¶33

8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

9. Post the matter “for reporting compliance” on 26.02.2026.

¶35

13.02.2026

¶36

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No VSM

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

WP(MD). No.3974 of 2026