(Prayer: Call for the impugned Refusal check slip as issued by the 2nd respondent dated 09.03.2026 under Reference No.RFL/ Kadathur/7/ 2026 and subsequently quash the same as illegal, erroneous and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the refused drafted sale deed bearing No.TP / 257634482/ 2026 in relation to the property bearing survey No.143/8 and New Survey No.143/8A measuring to an extent of 0.03.50 hectare (350sq.mtr) equivalent to 8.65 cents totally in which 177 sq.mtr along with two storeyed existing building with three shops as situated at Kadathur Village, Dharmapuri District forthwith)

1. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.03.2026 issued by the second respondent, refusing to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration.

2. The petitioner claims that major portion of the larger extent of the land was acquired by the Highways Department. According to the petitioner, the remaining extent of land, which is the subject matter of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration is absolutely owned by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that despite the production of the patta for the extent of land morefully disclosed in the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration, the second respondent has refused to register the settlement deed as seen from the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.03.2026.

3. According to the petitioner, the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.03.2026 issued by the second respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

4. Mr. U. Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. On instructions, he would submit that in the impugned order, there is no reference to the production of patta for the extent of land morefully disclosed in the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration.

5. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner categorically contends that the petitioner is in possession of the property, and had also got patta for the same, the petitioner must be granted an opportunity to produce the patta for the subject property standing in her name to enable the second respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration if the same is otherwise in order.

6. As seen from the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.03.2026, the production of patta by the petitioner for the subject property is not reflected.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would also submit that once the patta is produced by the petitioner for the extent of the land morefully disclosed in the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration, the second respondent shall register the subject settlement deed if the same is otherwise in order and release the same to the petitioner.

8. For the foregoing reasons, since the production of patta by the petitioner is not reflected in the impugned refusal check slip dated 04.11.2025, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 04.11.2025 has 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.

9. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 09.03.2026 issued by the second respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall produce the original patta standing in her name for the property morefully disclosed in the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, within the stipulated time, the second respondent shall register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner for registration if it is otherwise in order subject to payment of requisite stamp duty and registration fees and release the said document to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

10. In case, the second respondent decides to refuse registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, the second respondent shall pass a speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner as well as the supporting documents produced by the petitioner.

11. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.