Madras High Court
WP(MD)/18095/2026 of Arumugam Vs The Sub Registrar on 15 October 2026
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010849512026}
Arumugam
S/o.Ramaiah, 88, Neivayal Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Sub Registrar
Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
2. R.Vellaichamy,
S/o.Ramaiah Udyar (Late), Veezhimar Village, Thoonukudi Post, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
3. V.Sivakumar,
S/o.R.Vellaichamy, Udyar (Late), Veezhimar Village, Thoonukudi Post, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 of the 1st respondent made in protest petition quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to register the Inam Settlement deed dated 19.05.2026 of the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. J.Anandkumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.Pinaygash, SGP for R-1
Mr.Vinodh R for R-2 and R-3
__________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the first respondent on the protest petition and consequently to direct the first respondent to register the Inam Settlement Deed dated 19.05.2026 presented by the petitioner.
2. A refusal check slip has been issued, noting that patta stands in the name of the petitioner, whereas the “A” Register stands in the name of his father, giving rise to rival claims. An order transferring the patta in favour of the petitioner was passed as early as in the year 2018. The second respondent herein had earlier initiated proceedings for cancellation of the same by filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year 2020, in which notice was issued by the authority on 18.09.2025. Despite the issuance of notice, the second respondent failed to appear before the authority, whereas the petitioner appeared and produced various documents. Upon consideration of the same, the appeal came to be dismissed on 13.05.2026.
3. It is the case of the second respondent that a revision petition has been preferred against the said order before the District Revenue Officer. He would submit that the property originally belonged to the father of the __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026 petitioner and the father of the second respondent, apart from the petitioner and the father of the second respondent, there are four other legal heirs and that it was only due to the objection made by the petitioner that the legal heir certificate was not issued.
4. Be that as it may, even according to the second respondent, he had filed an appeal challenging the transfer of patta in favour of the petitioner as early as in the year 2020. Even after a lapse of six years, the second respondent had not approached the Civil Court seeking appropriate remedial measures, including partition of the property covered under the patta, which originally in the name of the petitioner's father. In that regard, this Court do not find any merit in the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents. However, considering the fact that the patta has stood in the name of the petitioner from the year 2018, and that the records also reflect that the petitioner is the son of Ramaiah Udayar, in whose name the patta originally stood and whose name is also reflected in the “A” Register, this Court finds that the impugned refusal check slip is irregular and has been issued arbitrarily on the basis of the objections raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3, without even producing any order passed by a competent Court in that regard. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order 15.06.2026 passed by the first respondent is set aside.
6. The petitioner is directed to re-present the document for registration before the first respondent and the first respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026 To The Sub Registrar, Devakottai, Sivagangai District. __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )
WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. TSG WP(MD) No. 18095 of 2026 15-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 28/10/2026 05:52:20 pm )