JUDGMENT : M.S. Ramesh, J. (Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act to set aside the order dated 11.07.2023 in W.P.No.20394 of 2023 and allow the appeal.) 1. The present Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20394 of 2023, dated 11.07.2023. 2. Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3, and Mrs.S.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the 4th respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition were that, there was a partition suit filed by one of the legal heirs of late Shri.Mooka Nanja Gowder in O.S.No.182 of 1977 before the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam, in connection with a property measuring an extent of 20.75 cents of land, out of a larger extent of 2.51 acres in Kotagiri Village and Taluk, Nilgiris District. In the said suit, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union Council, Kotagiri, was arrayed as the 26th defendant. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 16.09.1978, holding that the plaintiffs, legal heirs of the defendants 1 to 5 are entitled to 1/3rd share each. When an application in I.A.No.307 of 2012 was filed in the suit, seeking for passing of final decree, the District Collector of Nilgiris District and the Commissioner-cum-Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Kotagiri, filed an application in I.A.No.375 of 2013, seeking to implead themselves in the final decree proceedings. This application was dismissed on 28.03.2014 and the challenge made to the order of dismissal in C.R.P.No.2636 of 2015 before this Court was also dismissed on 23.07.2015. In the meantime, the final decree was passed by the trial Court on 15.07.2014. The order has become final and was binding on all the parties to the suit, including the Commissioner-cum-Block Development Officer, Kotagiri. 4. In this background, when the writ petitioner had presented a settlement deed on 25.04.2023, touching upon the portion of the properties, which were the subject matter of the partition suit, the 3rd respondent herein had returned the document, along with the refusal check slip dated 25.04.2023, stating the Block Development Officer, Kotagiri, had raised objections for registration of the documents, on the ground that the subject land belongs to the Government. Challenging this check slip, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20394 of 2023 was filed. Challenging this check slip, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.20394 of 2023 was filed. By an order dated 11.07.2023, the learned Singe Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition, by holding that whenever there is a dispute between the parties with regard to a document, the Registering Authority can refuse registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), since he is not entitled to adjudicate the disputed facts between the parties and thereby directed the writ petitioner to pursue his remedy before the competent Court of law. This order of the learned Single Judge is assailed in the present appeal. 5. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Block Development Officer, who was arrayed as 26th defendant in the partition suit, in which a preliminary decree came to be passed and who had unsuccessfully tried to implead himself in the final decree proceedings, is now estopped from raising any objection with regard to the alleged classification of the land. Since a final decree has already been passed and the same is binding on the Block Development Officer, he ought not to have raised objections before the Registering Authority, touching upon the registration of the lands that were subject matter of the partition suit. 6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the subject lands belong to the Government and if any registration is allowed to take place against these lands, serious prejudice would be caused to the Government and therefore, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the 3rd respondent/Sub- Registrar, who had only adhered to the objections raised by the 4th respondent herein, which is strictly in accordance with his powers under Section 22-A of the Act. 7. This is not a case where the ownership of the land or its classification is under dispute. The Block Development Officer, Kotagiri, was arrayed as the 26th defendant in the partition suit, in which a preliminary decree came to be passed. During the course of the final decree proceedings, he, along with the District Collector, had attempted to implead themselves in the final decree proceedings, which plea was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the further challenge to the rejection order was also confirmed by this Court, through orders passed in C.R.P.Nos.3505 of 2014 and 2636 of 2015, dated 23.07.2015. During the course of the final decree proceedings, he, along with the District Collector, had attempted to implead themselves in the final decree proceedings, which plea was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the further challenge to the rejection order was also confirmed by this Court, through orders passed in C.R.P.Nos.3505 of 2014 and 2636 of 2015, dated 23.07.2015. No further appeal was preferred either against the order passed in the Civil Revision Petitions or against the final decree proceedings by the official respondents herein. 8. The learned Single Judge had referred to Section 22-A of the Act, for the purpose of holding that the Registering Authority will be well within his powers to refuse registration when there are disputed facts between the parties. Apart from the objections raised by the Block Development Officer that the land belongs to the Government, there does not seem to be any other dispute between the parties to the lis. All these objections are deemed to have been raised by the Block Development Officer before the trial Court itself, as well as before this Court in the Civil Revision Petitions, which have been considered and rejected. 9. When the competent Court of law have already adjudicated the claim of the Block Development Officer and have also passed a final decree proceedings in the partition suit, we are unable to comprehend as to how there could exist any disputed fact at all. As a matter of fact, the parties to the suit proceedings are bound by the final decree proceedings and thus would be entitled to deal with their respective shares over the subject properties in accordance with the terms of the decree. When there are no disputed facts and the claim of the Block Development Officer over the subject lands have also been finally adjudicated and rejected, there was no authority or legal claim for the Block Development Officer to raise any objection with the Registering Authority to stall registration of any sort of document over the partition suit properties. Consequently, the refusal check slip, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, cannot be legally sustained. 10. For all the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.20394 of 2023, dated 11.07.2023, is set aside and consequently, the refusal check slip impugned in the Writ Petition dated 25.04.2023 stands quashed. Consequently, the refusal check slip, which was impugned in the Writ Petition, cannot be legally sustained. 10. For all the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.20394 of 2023, dated 11.07.2023, is set aside and consequently, the refusal check slip impugned in the Writ Petition dated 25.04.2023 stands quashed. In view of quashing of the check slip, the 3rd respondent herein shall entertain any document presented before him, touching upon the suit properties, which were the subject matter of O.S.No.182 of 1977, by any of the parties to the final decree proceedings passed in I.A.No.307 of 2012 in O.S.No.182 of 1977, dated 15.07.2014 and register the same, if it is otherwise in order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.