K.Madhappan v. The District Registrar,

ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 24.03.2025 issued by the third respondent refusing to register the settlement deed dated 24.03.2025 presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the original parent document.

¶2The petitioner has challenged the impugned refusal check slip on the ground that it is a non-speaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions as raised in this writ petition, and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶3Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶4As seen from the impugned refusal check slip, the petitioner was not afforded of any opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order. Neither the petitioner's contentions nor the supporting documents produced by him were considered in the impugned order. Being a non-speaking order with regard to the petitioner's contentions and the supporting documents produced by him, and an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated 24.03.2025 issued by the third respondent has to be quashed and the Page3 of 5 matter remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

¶5Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:-

(a) The impugned refusal check slip dated 24.03.2025 is quashed by this Court and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.

(b) The petitioner shall submit a written explanation to the third respondent stating as to why the settlement deed presented by the petitioner has to be registered, along with supporting documents, within a period of two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(c) On receipt of the same within the time stipulated, the third respondent, after giving due consideration to the written explanation submitted by the petitioner along with supporting documents, shall take a final decision with regard to registration of the settlement deed presented by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

(d) If the third respondent decides to refuse to register the settlement deed, the third respondent shall pass a Page4 of 5 speaking order, after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner and the supporting documents produced by him. 25-03-2026 RKM To

¶1The District Registrar, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶2The District Registrar (Administration), pennagaram, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶3The Sub-Registrar, pennagaram Sun-Registrar Office, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. WPoNo.o10851oofo2026 ABDULoQUDDHOSE,oJ. RKM WPoNo.o10851oofo2026 25-03-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE K.Madhappan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Registrar, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 2. The District Registrar (Administration), Pennagaram, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Pennagaram Sun-Registrar Office, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. ..Respondent(s) Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order in refusal check slip.No.RFL/Pennagaram/56/2025, rejection letter to registrar the settlement deed dated 24.03.2025 issued by the third respondent dated 24.03.2025 which was served to the petitioner on 24.03.2025 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and to pass a further direction to the third respondent to register the settlement deed in favour of M.Thangammal, wife of Mathappan, on file of third respondent in a time bound manner as fixed by this Court within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Naresh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, SGP Page2 of 5