WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 P.Prabakaran S/o. Paulraj, K.Puliyankulam, Checkanoorani Post, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Inspector General of Registration Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Thirumohur Road, Othakadai, Madurai. 3. The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai district. 4. The Sub Registration, Checkanurani, Madurai district 5. Om prakash S/o.Velmurugan No 69, EB main road, Velmurugan compound, Muthuramalingapuram, Thiruparankundram, Madurai-625 004. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry under section 82 and 83 of the Registration Act 1908 on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 document registered under Doc No.1839/2023 dated 08.11.2023 in survey numbers 129/2, 129/5, 129/9 before the 4th respondent and direct him to pass orders on petitioner complaint dated 01.07.2026 and pass such other or further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Ms.B.Bhuvaneshvari for M/s.Ganesan Legist Law Firm For Respondent(s): S.Venkatesh Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu for R1 to R4 ORDER This Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage after dispensing notice on the fifth respondent, as no adverse orders are proposed to be passed against him. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 on the document registered under Document No.1839 / 2023 dated 08.11.2023. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject property is the petitioner's ancestral property, in which the petitioner claims a share through his father. It is submitted that owing to an erroneous patta issued in favour of one Rasuthevar, the petitioner's father approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, by proceedings dated 06.12.2023, directed issuance of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 a joint patta in the names of Paulraj and Rasuthevar. However, during the pendency of the revenue proceedings, Rasuthevar's son, Ramu, taking advantage of the erroneous patta, executed a sale deed in respect of the entire property in favour of one Om Prakash, which came to be registered by the fourth respondent despite the petitioner's objection. 4. It is further submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer, in subsequent proceedings dated 12.01.2026, recorded that Ramu himself admitted that he was entitled only to a half share and had wrongly sold the entire property. According to the learned counsel, the registration was effected on the strength of an erroneous patta, which is not a document of title, and despite the petitioner's complaint, no effective action has been taken to enquire into the alleged fraudulent transaction. Hence, appropriate directions may be issued to consider the petitioner's complaint in accordance with law. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the registration of the sale deed was carried out based on the records available at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that disputes relating to title and ownership are pending before the competent Civil Court and that the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate such disputed questions of title. Nevertheless, the respondents would submit that the petitioner's complaint would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to all the persons concerned. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims or the question of title, this Court is of the view that the petitioner's complaint requires consideration by the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the first respondent/competent authority to consider the petitioner's complaint, issue notice to all the aggrieved and interested persons, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the validity of the sale deed or the rival claims of title, and all such issues are left open to be decided by the competent forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 22-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1. The Inspector General of Registration Registration Department, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Thirumohur Road, Othakadai, Madurai. 3. The District Registrar (Administration), Registration Department, TNAU Nagar, Rajakambeeram, Y.Othakadai, Madurai district. 4. The Sub Registration, Checkanurani, Madurai district https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 M.DHANDAPANI, J. smn2 WP(MD) No. 20732 of 2026 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis