W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD)No.36278 of 2025 P.Pandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. 2.Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Temple, Represented by the Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer , Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents [R3 is suo motu impleaded vide order dated 18.12.2025] Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned Refusal Check Slip vide Refusal number: RFL/Sankarankovil/125/2025 dated 09.09.2025 passed by the first respondent with regard to Plot No.53 with constructed house bearing Door No.740 and 740A comprised in Re-survey No.620/2 and new Natham survey No.747/3, in NGO ''A'' Colony measuring to an extent of _____________ Page No. 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 93/8 cents situated in Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to register the documents/deeds to be presented by the petitioner with regard to Plot No.53 in NGO ''A'' Colony measuring to an extent of 93/8 cents situated in NGO ''A'' Colony, Kalappakulam Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For R1 and R3 : Mr.S.Venkatesh Government Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.S.Manohar Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 09.09.2025, whereby the first respondent declined to register the Sale Deed dated 09.09.2025 executed by the petitioner in favour of one K.M.Velladurai, on the ground that the second respondent Temple had raised an objection to the registration. 2. The relevant portion of the impugned Refusal Check Slip reads as follows: _____________ Page No. 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 3. The records reveal that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner, under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.12.1986, registered as Document No.1666 of 1986, from the Sankarankovil N.G.G.O.'s and Other Public Servants Co-operative Building Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that certain proceedings had earlier been initiated by the second respondent Temple after Settlement Pattas were issued by the Settlement Tahsildar on 18.03.1968 under Act 30 of 1963 in favour of the Bhattars. The Bhattars had thereafter sold the lands to the Society. The said transaction became the subject matter of challenge in O.S.No.181 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. The suit was decreed on 30.07.1977. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Society and the Bhattars preferred A.S.No. 23 of 1977. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat. _____________ Page No. 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 5. It is submitted that, pursuant to the compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat in A.S.No.23 of 1977, the Commissioner also granted sanction under Section 43 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, on 22.02.1982, ratifying the earlier alienations. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, in terms of the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat, the sale consideration received by the Bhattars from the Society was to be paid over to the Temple. 7. It is submitted that, pursuant thereto, a Release Deed dated 03.04.1982 was executed by the Bhattars in favour of the Society. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the subject property from the Society under the registered Sale Deed dated 01.12.1986, registered as Document No.1666 of 1986. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property ever since. The Sale Deed sought to be registered was executed by the petitioner in favour of K.M.Velladurai, due to financial constrains. _____________ Page No. 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 8. It is further evident from the records that the Temple itself had issued a Caution Notice as early as 10.12.2005 in respect of several lands comprised in various survey numbers, cautioning the general public against entering into any transaction relating to the said lands. The relevant portion of the Caution Notice is extracted below: _____________ Page No. 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 9. It is also evident from the records that the Temple itself had issued a No Objection Certificate in its proceedings dated 15.05.2006, bearing Reference No.Na.Ka.No.1130/2005/A1. The relevant portion of the said No Objection Certificate is extracted below: Thus, it is evident that, in respect of the very property for which the objection has now been raised, the second respondent Temple had already issued a No Objection Certificate as early as 15.05.2006. _____________ Page No. 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 10. That apart, insofar as the property comprised in Survey No.619, measuring an extent of 13.58 acres out of the total extent of 38.88 acres, is concerned, this Court, in W.P.(MD)No.19520 of 2021, vide order dated 30.11.2021, has observed in paragraphs 5 to 9 as follows: ''5. A survey was conducted in the presence of recognized surveyors to identify the land primarily the entire 13.58 acres of the Temple, the 8.85 acres sold by the Temple to the Society and also the land of the petitioner which he claims that he had purchased from the Society. The result of the survey had been stated in the written instructions forwarded by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the second respondent. A sketch had also been given. 6. I hold that it would only be appropriate that the sketch is also annexed to this order. In that sketch, the yellow marked portion is now retained by the Temple. The small pink with the black mark is the land now intended to be purchased by the petitioner herein. It is claimed that it is quite far away from the land of the Temple and that the second respondent can therefore have no objection whatsoever in that land being conveyed to the petitioner herein. 7. In view of the categorical statement, I would direct the first respondent to receive the sale deed which had been refused to register, re-examine the entire issue and thereafter, to proceed further in manner known to law provided that documents are otherwise in order with respect to stamp duty and registration charges. 8. This Writ Petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction to the first respondent to examine the sale deed whenever presented by the petitioner herein within a period of ten (10) working days from the date when it is again presented by the petitioner. 9. Let the petitioner present the documents after going through the normal procedure of online application of _____________ Page No. 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 presentation of such documents. The petitioner may also take advantage of this order and furnish a copy of this order to the first respondent/the Sub Registrar.'' 11. A similar order has also been passed by this Court in respect of other properties for which the respondent Temple had already issued No Objection Certificates, in W.P.(MD)Nos.5954 of 2024 and 21737 of 2023. For the sake of clarity, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 8 to 10 of the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.5954 of 2024 and 21737 of 2023, wherein the aforesaid decision was followed. The relevant portion of the said order read as follows: ''8. When the authorities also aware of the fact that the properties have been sold long back, merely on technical aspect, they cannot non-suit the settled issues. In view of the fact that the proceedings has already been issued by the Commissioner permitting the compromise, it has to be held that there is a deemed sanction not only for compromise but also the sale of the property, which has already been took place in the year 1975. 9. In such view of the matter, as the plots have already been developed and which have also been earmarked, there shall not be any direction not to register any documents hereafter in respect of above survey numbers. Merely on the basis of objection, the rights of the parties, which have already been crystallized, cannot be taken away. Therefore, the impugned refusal check slips issued by the 1st respondent are liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slips dated 13.12.2023 and 24.08.2023 respectively issued by the 1st respondent are quashed and the Writ Petitions are allowed. The 1st respondent is directed to register the documents submitted by _____________ Page No. 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 the petitioners, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.'' 12. Similarly, by order dated 27.07.2022 and 02.11.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.12620 of 2022 and W.P.(MD)No.21746 of 2022, respectively, this Court issued directions in respect of the following survey numbers:- Sl. No. Petitioner's Name W.P.(MD)No. Survey No. 1. Kalyanasundaram 12620 of 2022 Survey No. 438A/1A1A, Re- Survey No.622/1 2. Duraipandian 21746 of 2022 Survey No.747/12 Thus, the overwhelming documentary evidence on record indicates that there cannot be any serious objection to the registration of the subject document. 13. Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the first respondent to exercise the powers conferred under Section 84(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, and consider the petitioner's request for registration in the light of the aforesaid documents and in accordance with law. It is open to the petitioner to produce copies of the _____________ Page No. 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 above-mentioned documents before the first respondent in support of his claim for registration. 14. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. NCC : Yes / No 16.07.2026 smn2 (2/3) To 1.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner / Executive Officer , Arulmigu Sankaranarayanaswamy Temple, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District. 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. _____________ Page No. 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 C.SARAVANAN , J. smn2 W.P.(MD) No.36278 of 2025 16.07.2026 (2/3) _____________ Page No. 11 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis