SUDHA RAVI KUMAR Vs. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER,HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT,CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to the orders passed by the Sub Registrars under the Registration Act, 1908, either refusing to register the sale deeds or refusing to return the sale deeds after registration. The impugned orders came to be passed in the following circumstances:

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either transferees or transferors of the immovable properties. According to them, these properties have got nothing to do with any religious institutions. When the deeds of transfer were presented, the respective registering authorities (respondent herein) either refused to register the same or after the registration, refused to return the document by citing the reason that the executive officer of a particular religious institution had requested him in writing not to register any such deed of sale, transfer, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease in respect of the said property. Thus, by passing one line order of refusal, the registering authority simply refused to register or return the document to the party concerned. Those orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. Since common issues have come up for adjudication, we have heard all the writ petitions together and dispose of the same by means of this common order.

(3.) It is the common ground of the petitioners that the impugned orders passed by various registering authorities which are under challenge in these writ petitions are not speaking orders and thus they suffer from arbitrariness. It is their further contention that before passing the impugned order concerned, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the respective parties who were the parties to the document to prove the genuineness of the transaction and also to disprove the claim of the religious institution that the said property belonged to the religious institution. In other words, according to the petitioners without affording any opportunity whatsoever the impugned orders have been passed and thus there is clear violation of audi alteram partem principle.