logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 7236 print Preview print Next print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P. (MD) No. 10795 of 2025 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 8051 & 8052 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Parties : RJT Nagar Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam through its President R. Thalamuthu Versus The District Collector, Madurai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Srinivasaragavan for K. Samidurai, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to R5, D. Sadiq Raja, Addl. Government Pleader, R6, M. Sridhar, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 15-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Jurisdiction
- Registration
- Mutation
- Interim stay

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Revenue Divisional Officer’s letter dated 22.03.2024 directing the Sub‑Registrar not to register certain lands. The petitioner claimed ownership of the lands and alleged that the respondents denied mutation in revenue records. The respondents contended that the RDO lacks authority to direct the Sub‑Registrar and that the petitioner failed to follow the prescribed online registration procedure. The Court noted that the petitioner did not submit an online application as required, but the RDO’s direction was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were set aside, with a direction that any future application made in accordance with the registration rules will be considered on merits. An interim stay was earlier granted, and the petition was disposed of without costs.

Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 5301/2016 dated 22.03.2024 issued by the second respondent and quash and set aside the same.)

1. Challenging the impugned proceedings of the second respondent dated 22.03.2024, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the members of the petitioner association had purchased the subject lands through registered documents. However, the respondents have not entertained any application pertaining to mutation in the revenue records owing to the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that the second respondent passed the impugned proceedings without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 submitted that it is not within the powers of the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct the Sub-Registrar to refrain from registering any land. However, he further contended that the petitioner association had not submitted any online application for the purpose of registration of documents by following the prescribed procedure. Without even applying online, the petitioner cannot make allegations against the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. The second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated 22.03.2024 to the registering authority directing it not to register the land in Survey No.111/2. The said letter also refers to several other survey numbers, wherein the registering authority/fifth respondent was directed to refrain from registering properties in those survey numbers.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition before this Court, an order of interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner.

7. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the interim order passed in this writ petition, the petitioner association approached the concerned registering authority for registration of the property by producing the relevant documents. When this Court questioned the petitioner regarding proof of such an approach to the registering authority, the learned counsel submitted that the same was stated in the averments made in the affidavit.

8. It is not in dispute that a prescribed procedure exists for the purpose of registration. An application is required to be made online, and all relevant documents must be scanned and uploaded. It is also not in dispute that the said procedure was not followed by the petitioner.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner association would henceforth follow the procedure laid down for the purpose of registration. Since the second respondent is not vested with the power to direct the fifth respondent/Sub-Registrar to refrain from registering the lands, the impugned proceedings dated 22.03.2024 are hereby set aside. In the event of any application being made in accordance with the rules prescribed for registration, the same shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

10. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal