Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1710 (MAD)

T. Kannammal v. Sub-Registrar, Madurai

2014-06-26

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment R. Mahadevan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na. Ka. No. 380 of 2012 dated 31.10.2012 and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently, direct the first respondent to register the document (Sale deed executed and presented on 31.10.2012) presented for registration by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she purchased a punja land through a sale deed dated 31.10.2012 for valid consideration. When the sale deed was presented before the first respondent for registration, it was refused to be registered by way of the impugned order stating that the petitioner has to obtain a "No Objection Certificate" from the second respondent, who made an objection for registration of the same. The second respondent made such objection on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioner is the temple land. Aggrieved by such denial for registration, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The first respondent filed the counter affidavit refuting all the averments in the affidavit and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the above said land from its original owner and the said property was devolved on the predecessor-in-title as per the registered surrender deed dated 20.11.1994 and after the purchase of the said land, the petitioner approached the first respondent for registration, which was negatived by the impugned order, referring to the letter of the second respondent dated 25.01.2006. 6. Whereas, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since there is an objection raised by the second respondent for registration of the petitioner's document, the first respondent has passed the impugned order negativing the claim of the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it lacks reasoning for the refusal of registration by the first respondent and at the most, it could be termed as nothing but a nonspeaking order and without adducing any proper reasons, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, which, would, no doubt, cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. 7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it lacks reasoning for the refusal of registration by the first respondent and at the most, it could be termed as nothing but a nonspeaking order and without adducing any proper reasons, the claim of the petitioner was rejected, which, would, no doubt, cause prejudice to the petitioner. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order has no legs to stand and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. In fine, this writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to adduce proper reasons after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the second respondent and take appropriate decision in the light of Rule 55 of the Registration Rules and Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.