Skip to content


S. Palanisamy and Others Vs. The Sub Registrar of Registration, Karur and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 4452 of 2008 & M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2008
Judge
AppellantS. Palanisamy and Others
RespondentThe Sub Registrar of Registration, Karur and Another
Excerpt:
.....authority. 4. heard, mr.p.srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mr.k.guru, learned additional government pleader for the first respondent and mr.s.palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. the counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that as per the circular dated 03.11.2007, no documents in respect of the said land belonging to the petitioners should be registered, since the alleged survey land is belonged to the second respondent. 6. during the course of the arguments, the petitioner produced a judgment passed by this court in w.p.no.5133 of 2009 dated 28.04.2009, in which circular passed by the first respondent in letter ref. no.67705/07/m3 dated 03.11.2007 was challenged. by considering their case, this court.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter dated 23.04.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deeds and conveyances in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners in Survey No.200/2, 200/1C, 200/1B, Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk, without reference to any other authority.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter dated 23.04.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deeds and conveyances in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.200/2, 200/1C, 200/1B, Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk, without reference to any other authority.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Power Agent, namely, S.Subramani and the said Power was registered on 29.01.2008 for the Survey Nos. 200/2, 200/1C, 200/1B, at Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk pertaining to an extent of 2.08 acres, since the petitioners 2 to 5 are the daughters and sons of the first petitioner and the property involved in this petition is a common property of them. When the petitioner decided to sell the lands to various third parties and one such Sale Deed was executed to one K.Mahalingam, dated 23.04.2008 and it was presented before the first respondent for Registration. Pursuant to the same, on 23.04.2008, the first respondent written a letter to the said Mahalingam by stating that the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, by a letter dated 03.11.2007 has advised the first respondent that the documents pertaining to the lands vested in the Religious Institutions should not be registered and returned as document.

3. Later on the Writ petitioner came to know that the second respondent has communicated the letter dated 03.11.2007 to the first respondent that in his letter dated 29.02.2008, stating that various extents of lands in various villages are vested with the second respondent, including the survey numbers stated above. Therefore the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents in which the impugned order dated 23.04.2008 was passed stating that the land in survey No.200 belongs to Karur Arulmighu Kalyana Pasupatheeswara Swamy Thirukovil. The second respondent/Executive Officer sent a letter dated 29.02.2008 stating that the properties vested in the Religious Institutions should not be registered, by raising a circular dated 03.11.2007 and the survey No.200 should not be registered by the registering Authority.

4. Heard, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent stating that as per the circular dated 03.11.2007, no documents in respect of the said land belonging to the petitioners should be registered, since the alleged survey land is belonged to the second respondent.

6. During the course of the arguments, the petitioner produced a Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.5133 of 2009 dated 28.04.2009, in which Circular passed by the first respondent in letter Ref. No.67705/07/M3 dated 03.11.2007 was challenged. By considering their case, this Court passed the following order in para Nos.4 and 6:-

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that initially, the lands in question were settled in favour of the petitioner by way of document and the adjacent lands in favour of the temple. Subsequently, while bringing to the notice of the Registering Authority, the particulars of the temple lands, by mistake, the Executive Officer had included the lands belonging to the petitioner also. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, as far as the land in question is concerned, patta has been issued in favour of private individuals and in support of this contention, the learned Additional Advocate General Places reliance on the list furnished by the Executive Officer containing the details of lands for which patta granted by Settlement Officer to private individuals, which has been enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the 1st respondent and the relevant portion finds place at Page No.4. Consequently, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, when the lands in question have been assigned in favour of the petitioner, the question of getting No Objection Certificate from the temple authorities does not arise.

6. The learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that since already the Executive Officer of Arulmighu Kalyana Pasupatheeswara Swami Tirukoil, Karur has submitted a list dated 04.03.2009 wherein the particulars of the lands assigned to the individuals are mentioned, a general direction may be issued to the registering authority to take appropriate steps with regard to the registration of the said lands without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the respondent department. In view of this, the second and third respondents are directed that in the event of any request made to register the lands mentioned in the list dated 04.03.2009 (which are detailed below) submitted by the Executive Officer, the same may be proceeded with, without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the temple authorities.

As per the above Judgment, the learned Additional Advocate General has stated before this Court, in the above Writ Petition that the survey number mentioned in the above order was wrongly included in the circular dated 03.11.2007. Hence considering their case, this Hon'ble Court passed the above direction to the respondents 2 and 3 that in the event of any request to register the lands mentioned in the list dated 04.03.2009 submitted by the Executive Officer, the same may be proceeded with, without any insisting on No Objection letter from the Temple Authorities.

7. On perusal of the above Judgment in Page No.10, theSurvey No.200 by total extent of 6.26 acres of land mentioned atThoranakkalpatti Village and the same was excluded from the abovecircular. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the aboveJudgment squarely apply to the case of the petitioner. Hence, theabove Writ Petition is allowed. Accordingly, I am directing the firstrespondent to register the petitioners' document without insistingany No Objection certificate to be obtained from the secondrespondent/the Executive Officer, Arulmighu KalyanaPasupatheeswara Swamy Temple, Karur, if any filed by thepetitioners, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitionis closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //