Madras High Court
Dr.R.G.Ramathilagam vs The Joint I Sub Registrar Vridhachalam on 13 July, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.16381 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.16381 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.15801 of 2022
Dr.R.G.Ramathilagam
Rep by Power of Attorney Agent
N.Prasanna ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint I Sub Registrar Vridhachalam,
Sub Registration Office,
Vridhachalam, Cuddalore.
2.The District Registrar,
Cuddalore District,
Office of the District Registrar,
Cuddalore.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Office of the Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome, Chennai.
4.Tamil Nadu Wakf Board,
Rep. by Chief Executive Officer,
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street,
Vallal Seethakathi Nagar,
Chennai – 1. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16381 of 2022
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 1st respondent in
RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar Vridhachalam/73/2022 dated 19/04/22 and quash
the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register and
release the document being the sale agreement dated 18/04/2022 to the
petitioner after hearing the petitioner, if required and conducting enquiry as
laid down by a decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court
reported in 2017(3) CTC 135 in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The
Special Commissioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent-4 : Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar Vridhachalam/73/2022 dated 19.04.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register and release the document being the sale agreement dated 18.04.2022 to the petitioner after hearing the petitioner, if required and conducting enquiry as laid down by a decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court reported in 2017(3) CTC 135 in the case of Sudha Ravi Kumar Vs. The Special Commissioner.
2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.03.2012 bearing Doc.No.1174/2012 on the file of the first respondent herein. Petitioner's power agent had executed a sale agreement dated 18.04.2022 in favour of one Satheesh Kumar to convey the petition mentioned property on fulfilment of terms and conditions agreed thereunder. When the said sale agreement was presented for registration before the first respondent on 19.04.2022, the same was refused to be registered by the first respondent vide Refusal Check Slip No.RFL/1 Joint Sub Registrar Vridhachalam/73/2022 dated 19.04.2022 on the ground that the petition mentioned property belongs to the Wakf Board. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. It has already been considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135 [Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others], wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has issued direction to the Registration Department to conduct enquiry in between the executant of the deed and religious Institution and thereafter to pass orders. In the present case, the first respondent, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, simply returned the document presented by the petitioner for registration for the reason that the petition mentioned property belongs to the Wakf Board, which is unsustainable one.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6.The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. Similar issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2017) 3 CTC 135 [Sudha Ravi Kumar and another Vs. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner, Hindu Religious and 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai and others], the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“25. But this observation of ours shall not be construed that it is our conclusion that ryotwari patta issued to the ryot concerned is the final adjudication relating to the title for the property. We wish to clarify that the final adjudication regarding the title to the property can be had only before a Civil Court. We only say that at the time of registration of the deed, if any objection is made by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the registering authority shall issue notice afford opportunity to the parties, apply his mind and only from the materials available before him, if he is satisfied that the land belongs to the religious institution or given or endowed to the religious institution, then, he shall refuse to register such deed.
26. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with the following directions:
(i) The registering authority before whom the document has been presented shall cause service of notice on the parties to the deeds and also to the objector/religious institution, hold summary enquiry, hear the parties and then either register or refuse to register the document by passing an order 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 having regard to the relevant facts as indicated above.
(ii) If the registering authority, refuses to register any document by accepting the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the aggrieved may file a statutory appeal under the Act.
(iii) If the objections raised under Section 22-A of the Act by the religious institution are rejected and the document is registered, the remedy for the religious institution is to either approach this Court by way of a writ petition seeking cancellation of the registration or for any other relief or to approach the civil Court for declaration of the title and for other consequential reliefs.
(iv) If the registering authority refuses to register the document acting on the objections raised by a religious institution under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, the parties to the deed will be at liberty to straightaway approach the Civil Court for declaration of title and other relief without availing the opportunity for filing a statutory appeal.
(v) We further direct that if the deed has already been registered without there being any objection 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 by the religious institution under Section 22-A of the Act, the document shall be returned to the parties concerned leaving it open for the religious institution to approach either the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Civil Court for appropriate relief as indicated above. At any rate, the registering authority shall not withhold the deed which has already been registered.
(vi) Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.”
7. The decision cited supra makes it clear that at the time of registration of the deed, if any objection is made by the religious institution, the registering Authority shall afford opportunity to the parties, apply his mind and only from the materials available before him, if he is satisfied that the land belongs to the religious Institution or given or endowed to the religious Institution, then, he shall refuse to register such deed.
8. In the present case, the first respondent, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, simply 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 returned the document presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the petition mentioned property belongs to the Wakf Board, which is unsustainable one. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to consider the document presented by the petitioner and after conducting enquiry with the petitioner and the fourth respondent in terms of Division Bench decision cited supra, shall pass appropriate orders.
10. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.07.2022 rsi Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 To
1.The Joint I Sub Registrar Vridhachalam, Sub Registration Office, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore.
2.The District Registrar, Cuddalore District, Office of the District Registrar, Cuddalore.
3.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai.
4.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai – 1.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16381 of 2022 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rsi W.P.No.16381 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.15801 of 2022 13.07.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis