ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the inaction of the first respondent in registering the sale deed dated 23.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner in Doc. No. P-86/Book-I/2010, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, praying for a direction in the nature of writ, to the first respondent to register the said sale deed. 2. According to the petitioner, on 23.12.2010, he purchased a superstructure from one P.H. Jamal Mohideen measuring 925 sq.ft. situated at old Door No.21 New Door No.37, Kachaleeswarar Garden Street, Muthialpet, Chennai-1 comprised in old Survey No.1872, R.S. No. 2696 of Muthialpet. The said superstructure originally belonged to P. Balu Pillai and his wife Smt.Dhanakottiammal and they conveyed the same in favour of one K.N. Vadivelu Naicker under a sale deed dated 12.06.1975 registered in Doc. No. 4336/1975 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Chennai-North. The said K.N. Vadivelu Naicker mortgaged the said property in favour of i. Mohan, ii. Ganesan and iii. Lawrence Arockiaraj under a mortgage deed dated 5.2.1997 and he discharged the same on 10.11.1999 and thereafter, he conveyed the same in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, namely, P.H. Jamal Mohideen under a sale deed dated 14.12.2000, who in turn sold the same in favour of the petitioner. After purchasing the above said property, the petitioner submitted the sale deed dated 23.12.2010 to the first respondent for the purpose of registering the same and it was taken on file as Doc.P-86/Book-I/2010. Since the first respondent has not taken any action in registering the said document, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. A counter statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent/temple, wherein, it has been stated that the second respondent/Arulmigu Katchaleeswarar Devasthanam is the owner of the land comprised in 1872, R.S. No. 2696 of Katchaleeswrar Garden Street in C.C. No. 1277 and it was let out to several tenants in small portions. The second respondent/temple is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The land measuring about 850 sq.ft. on which, the superstructure made and sought for registration by the petitioner, was let out to one K.N. Vadivel on a month rent of Rs.70/-, who assigned the leasehold right to one P.H. Jamal Mohideen on 14.12.2000 without permission from the second respondent and HR & CE Department. The land measuring about 850 sq.ft. on which, the superstructure made and sought for registration by the petitioner, was let out to one K.N. Vadivel on a month rent of Rs.70/-, who assigned the leasehold right to one P.H. Jamal Mohideen on 14.12.2000 without permission from the second respondent and HR & CE Department. Since the said P.H. Jamal Mohideen was in unauthorised occupation of the temple land, proceedings under Section 78(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act (in short, HR & CE Act) were initiated for recovery of possession from him and the same were pending. As per Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, any immovable property belonging to the temple cannot be alienated without necessary sanction from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department and if alienated, it would be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner. The erstwhile lease holder, K.N. Vadivel had not obtained any permission from the Commissioner HR & CE Department for assigning the leasehold right in favour P.H. Jamal Mohideen or to any third party. While that be so, the said Jamal Mohideen, without any right, has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the superstructure and assigning the leasehold right of the land and the petitioner in turn submitted the said sale deed before the first respondent for registration. The first respondent has sent a communication dated 27.12.2010 to the HR & CE Department calling for any objection for the registering the document. On receipt of the said communication, the Commissioner sent proceedings, dated 7.1.2011 to the first respondent, objecting to the registration of the sale deed. 4. It has been further stated in the counter that already a suit in O.S. No. 1171 of 2011 was filed by the second respondent against the original leaseholder, vendor of the petitioner and against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining them from alienating or assigning the leasehold right and executing any document in respect of the second respondent/temple property under the guise of sale of superstructure. The said suit is pending for disposal. But the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the fact of pendency of the suit against her. The said suit is pending for disposal. But the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing the fact of pendency of the suit against her. The temple land or leasehold rights cannot be transferred without permission from the HR & CE Department and even if the document is registered, the petitioner cannot claim any over the land or the leasehold right in his name. With these averments, the second respondent sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has sought for registration of the sale deed which pertains only to the superstructure constructed on the land belonging to the second respondent/Arulmigu Katchaleeswarar Devasthanam which land was leased out by the temple and the first respondent ought to have registered the same without insisting upon production of NOC from HR & CE Department. He would further contend that there is no legal impediment for the first respondent in registering the document inasmuch as Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has already been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Besant Nahate 2005 (4) CTC 606 : AIR 2005 SC 3401 : (2005) 12 SCC 77 : LNIND 2005 SC 681 and it was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment reported in Captain Dr. R. Bellie v. Sub Registrar LNIND 2007 MAD 1042 : (2007) 3 MLJ 1025 and subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Government also revoked G.O.Ms.150, dated 22.09.2000 which insisted production of NOC. He also contended that following the above said decision, this Court also passed orders in similar matters in W.P.Nos.1528 of 2004, dated 16.7.2008, 26879 of 2008, dated 13.11.2008, 25516 of 2010, dated 22.12.2010 and 29430 of 2012, dated 1.11.2012. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that similar order may be passed in this writ petition also. 7. Before dealing with the issue involved in this Writ Petition, it is relevant to mention the following undisputed facts. i) The land measuring 850 sq.ft. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that similar order may be passed in this writ petition also. 7. Before dealing with the issue involved in this Writ Petition, it is relevant to mention the following undisputed facts. i) The land measuring 850 sq.ft. on which the superstructure was constructed and sought for registration by the petitioner by sale deed, dated 23.12.2010 belongs to Arulmigu Katchaleeswarar Devasthanam, the second respondent herein and it is under the control of the HR and CE Department and the said temple comes within the purview of HR & CE Act; ii) The said land was originally leased out to one K.N. Vadivel on a monthly rent of Rs.70/-by the temple and he has not applied or obtained any permission from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department for assigning or transferring the leasehold rights in favour of third party or P.H. Jamal Mohideen from whom, the petitioner said to have purchased the superstructure; iii) Either the petitioner or the vendor of the petitioner, P.H. Jamal Mohideen are in legal occupation of the land and their occupation over the land has not been recognized by the temple; iv) A suit in O.S. No. 1171 of 2011 has been filed by the second respondent temple, represented by the Executive Officer, against the petitioner, P.H. Jamal Mohideen and K.N. Vadivel and it is pending for disposal; v) The Commissioner, HR & CE Department has sent proceedings dated 27.12.2010 to the first respondent, objecting to the registration of the sale deed dated 23.12.2010 sought for by the petitioner in respect of the superstructure standing on the land belonging to the second respondent temple. 8. Apart from the above, it is not the case of the petitioner that there is relationship much less tenant and the landlord between the petitioner and the second respondent/temple. It is the case of the second respondent/temple that the land was originally leased out to one K.N. Vadivel on a monthly rent of Rs.70/-, who was not prompt in payment of the said amount, but he transferred the leasehold right to one P.H. Jamal Mohideen on 14.12.2000 without permission from the authorities of the HR & CE Department. It is the case of the second respondent/temple that the land was originally leased out to one K.N. Vadivel on a monthly rent of Rs.70/-, who was not prompt in payment of the said amount, but he transferred the leasehold right to one P.H. Jamal Mohideen on 14.12.2000 without permission from the authorities of the HR & CE Department. According to the second respondent/temple, when the subsequent so-called P.H. Jamal Mohideen is an authorised occupant and while the proceedings under Section 78(2) of the Act were initiated for recovery of possession, it appears that the said Jamal Mohideen executed a sale deed in respect of the superstructure constructed on the land to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can also be termed as an unauthorised occupant and as rightly contended on behalf of the second respondent, the petitioner is nothing but attempting to get transferred the leasehold rights in his favour by way of registering the sale deed. 9. It is unfortunate to note that the persons, viz., the petitioner and his vendor P.H.Jamal Mohideen, who were not having any legal right by possessing valid tenancy in their favour, attempting to make their status as legal in the form of registering the sale deed, which cannot be permitted in law. 10. In this regard, Sections 34 and 34(B) of HR & CE Act are relevant and they are extracted as under: “34. Alienation of immovable trust property:(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purposes of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed sanction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly considered by the Commissioner. Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government. Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government. “34-B. Termination of lease of immovable property._(1) The lease of immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be liable to be terminated on the non-payment of the lease rent after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2) No proceeding to terminate the lease shall be initiated, if- (i) the time for appeal or revision under Sub-section (3) or Sub Section(5), as the case may be, of Section 34-A has not expired; or (ii) the order has been made the subject of such appeal or revision till the disposal of the matter. 3)On the termination of the lease under Sub Section (1), the property shall vest with the concerned religious institution free from all encumbrance and the Executive Officer, the Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case may be, of such religious institution shall take possession of the property including the building, superstructure and trees, if any.” 11. A reading of the above provision of law would explicit that any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner, who in fact, shall not accord such sanction without the previous approval of the Government. Admittedly, the lease period given to original leaseholder, K.N. Vadivel had already been expired more than a decade back and therefore, such lease if claims by anyone including the petitioner and P.H. Jamal Mohideen shall be construed as null and void and there was no sanction accorded by the Commissioner in their favour. Of-course, it is true that the first respondent being Joint Sub Registrar has no authority to verify whether a particular transaction is null and void and the concerned (i.e. the temple) party who claims that the transaction is statutorily declared as null and void, has to establish the same before the Court and obtain necessary orders to restrain the first respondent from registering the document of sale. But in the circumstances of the present case, where, the petitioner has not come forward with true particulars and it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of the suit filed by the HR & CE Department against him and others and suppressing the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 12. Section 34-B of the Act envisages that even though a lessee of the land which belonged to the temple, had put up a superstructure over it, he cannot claim exclusive right against the superstructure put up by him on the land taken on lease by him from the temple. Clause 3 of Section 34-B indicates that after the termination of the lease, the authorities of the public temple has got every right to take possession of the superstructure inclusive of fixtures put up by the lessee over the land which was leased out to him by the said temple. Therefore, when such being the position that after expiry of the lease, the authorities can take possession including the superstructure from the original lessee himself, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the orders passed by this Court in similar writ petitions on earlier occasions. Having gone through the orders passed in W.P.Nos.1528 of 2004, dated 16.7.2008, 26879 of 2008, dated 13.11.2008, 25516 of 2010, dated 22.12.2010 and 29430 of 2012, dated 1.11.2012, this Court finds that in those matters, neither the temple nor the HR & CE Department or the original owner of the subject property were party to the writ petitions and without consideration of the real dispute, those orders came to be passed without reference to Section 34 of the HR & CE Act and hence the said technical orders cannot be made applicable to the present case on hand. For all the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.