logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1893 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : WP No. 8877 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Parties : Jeyanthi Kalairajah Versus The Sub Registrar Office of the sub registrar, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P.V. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for K. Suthan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, R2 & R4, P. Harish, Government Advocate, R3, T. Saikrishnan, Standing Counsel (Wakf Board).
Date of Judgment : 04-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Wakf
- Power of Attorney
- Natural Justice
- Refusal Check Slip
- Registration
- Guideline Value Register

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ seeking removal of the “Govt Waqf Board Lands” classification from the Guideline Value Register and registration of a Power of Attorney dated 13.11.2025. The first respondent refused registration on the ground of Wakf classification without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice. The Court held the refusal order a non‑speaking order and ordered it quashed. The petitioner must submit a written explanation with supporting documents within a week. The second respondent is directed to issue notices, conduct an enquiry, and decide on the registration within six weeks. The petition is disposed of with these directions and no costs.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Directing the 2nd and 4th respondents to remove the classification “Govt Waqf Board Lands” in the Guideline Value Register pertaining to petitioners property comprised in Old Suvey No 156 New Survey No 156/2A situated in Mudichur village, Tambaram taluk, Chengalpattu District in her name on the basis of her patta bearing No 2099 issued by the Tahsildar Mudichur Revenue Village Tambaram Taluk, Chenglapattu and all other revenue records and consequentially direct the 1st Respondent herein to accept, register and release the power of attorney Deed dated 13.11.2025 executed by the petitioner which was refused by the 1st respondent in Refusal check Slip bearing Refusal Number RFL / Ashok nagar / Book 2/ dated 13.02.2026 on the ground of reflection of “Govt Waqf Board Lands” in its Guideline Value Register.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to remove the classification of the property, morefully described in the prayer to this petition, as a Wakf property, and consequently direct the first respondent to register the Power of Attorney dated 13.11.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of the property morefully described in the prayer to this writ petition. She claims that when she presented the Power of Attorney dated 13.11.2025 for registration, she was informed that the property had been classified as a Wakf property. The petitioner has filed supporting documents in the form of title deeds along with this writ petition to establish her claim that she is the absolute owner of the property. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the same.

3. In the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026, the Power of Attorney presented by the petitioner has been refused to be registered on the ground that the property has been classified as a Wakf property.

4. The petitioner categorically contends before this Court, with the help of supporting documents filed by her, that she is the absolute owner of the property. Admittedly, before issuing the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026, the first respondent did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. The contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition as well as the supporting documents filed by the petitioner, has also not been considered by the first respondent in the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026.

6. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned refusal check slip has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and it is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner before this Court and the impugned refusal check slip has also not given due consideration to the supporting documents produced by the petitioner before this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, since the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026 issued by the first respondent has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and is a non-speaking order, with regard to the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition and has not considered the supporting documents filed by the petitioner, necessarily, the impugned refusal check slip dated 13.02.2026 issued by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner is directed to submit a written explanation to the second respondent, stating as to how the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, along with supporting documents, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said written explanation from the petitioner, within the stipulated time, the second respondent shall issue notice to both the petitioner and the third respondent and conduct an enquiry after hearing both parties, and after giving due consideration to their respective contentions and the documents produced by them and shall take a final decision with regard to the registration of the Power of Attorney dated 13.11.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration.

9. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the written explanation from the petitioner.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal