(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent order in refusal number RFL /Palladam /4 /2026 dated 13.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the sale deed dated 06.02.2026 presented by the petitioner.)

1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.06.2026 issued by the 1st respondent.

2. Mr.Dominic S.David, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1st respondent and Mr.M.Veerabathran Prasanth, learned Government's counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3.

3. By consent of the parties, the main petition is taken up for disposal in the stage of admission itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the subject property was originally belonged to the petitioner's vendor, who acquired the said property vide the order dated 20.01.1972 passed by the Settlement Officer. Subsequently, the patta was also issued in favour of the petitioner’s vendor. Now, the petitioner’s vendor had executed a sale deed, pertaining to the subject property, in favour of the petitioner and presented the same before the respondents for the purpose of registration. However, the respondent had refused to register the said sale deed merely based on the objection raised by the 3rd respondent-Temple in terms of Section 22A of the Registration Act.

5. Further, he would contend that both the petitioner's vendor and the 3rd respondent-Temple are parties before the Settlement Officer. However, the 3rd respondent had not succeeded in the said adjudication and as stated above, the subject land was settled in favour of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 20.01.1972. In such case, if the 3rd respondent is aggrieved over the said order, the right course available to them is to approach an appropriate Civil Court to establish their right over the subject property. Without doing so, they had merely made an objection before the respondents for registration of the sale deed by invoking Section 22A of the Registration Act. Based on the said objection, the refusal check slip was issued by the respondent on 13.02.2026. Hence, this petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government's counsel appearing for the official respondents would submit that the impugned refusal check slip was issued only based on the objection received from the Temple in terms of Section 22A of the Registration Act. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent- Temple would submit that the subject land falls under the category of “Devatha Inam Land” and hence, they raised an objection for registering the sale deed pertaining to the said property. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

9. In the case on hand, there is no dispute on the aspect that the subject property was settled in favour of the petitioner's vendor by the settlement officer vide order dated 20.01.1972. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent-Temple had also participated in the enquiry conducted by the said Settlement Officer. However, no challenge was made by the 3rd respondent against the said settlement order and subsequently, the patta was also issued in the name of the petitioner. Even after the issuance of patta, no suit was filed by the 3rd respondent to establish their right over the subject property.

10. Under these circumstances, the petitioner's vendor had executed the sale deed dated 06.02.2026, pertaining to the subject property, in favour of the petitioner. When the said deed was presented for the purpose of registration, the respondents had refused to register the same vide refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026 merely based on the objection raised by the 3rd respondent in terms of Section 22A of the Registration Act.

11. In this case, the title over the subject property was already decided by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 20.01.1972. Pursuant to the same, patta was also issued in favour of the petitioner. In such case, the bar for registration of any document, pertaining to the said subject property, in terms of Section 22A of the Registration Act, would not at all apply. Even if the 3rd respondent is aggrieved over the issuance of patta, he can very well agitate the same before an appropriate Civil Court instead of filing an objection before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, a mere objection raised by the 3rd respondent will not be an impediment for the registration of petitioner's sale deed.

12. In view of the above, it is clear that the impugned refusal check slip came to be issued without any application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the sale deed dated 06.02.2026 before the respondents. Upon re-presentation, the concerned respondent shall conduct a formal enquiry and register the said document in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of re-presentation of the sale deed.

13. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.