Madras High Court
I.Usman vs The Sub Registrar on 6 October, 2025
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.677 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :.06.10.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.677 of 2025 I.USMAN ..Petitioner Vs. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR MARAKKANAM, TINDIVANAM TALUK VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. ...Respondent Prayer :-
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records relating to the Refusal Check Slip dated 20.12.2024 in RFL/Marakkanam/13/2024 issued by the respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.12.2024 executed in favour of the Petitioner on re-presentation within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honble Court For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondent : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate Order 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025 The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Refusal Check Slip dated 20.12.2024 issued by the respondent herein and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.12.2024 executed in favour of the Petitioner on re-presentation within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one R.Gayathri had intended to sell her property in favour of the petitioner for a valuable consideration, and accordingly, she executed a sale deed, however, when the said sale deed was presented for registration on 20.12.2024, the respondent refused to register the said document citing the bar contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, hence the petitioner has approached this Court challenging such refusal dated 20.12.2024.
2.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's vendor, viz., Gayathri owns totally 1.60 acres of land, out of which, the petitioner intends to purchase only an extent of 25 cents, which is an unapproved plot, that too, only for the putting up agricultural farm and so 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025 far as the remaining 1.35 acres of land is concerned, the petitioner's vendor has already settled the same to and in favour of her husband, and therefore, it is submitted that when the very object of the petitioner's vendor from using the land for any other purpose other than housing development is very clear, the question of plotting the property and selling the land would not arise, and since the petitioner is going to purchase only a small portion from his vendor, viz.,25 cents, the certificate under Section 22-A of the Registration Act would not come into picture. Thus, by averring so, the learned counsel prays for quashing the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent and to issue appropriate direction for registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent while reiterating the averments set out in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent would submit that as per Rule 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as well as in terms of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, the respondent is not empowered to register the sale deed.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. There is no dispute on the aspect that in the event of registration of any document in respect of any unapproved plot that are sold subsequent to the commencement of Section 22-A of the Registration Act as well as in terms of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, certainly, the Registrar is empowered to refuse to register any such document/sale deed. However, in the present case, facts of the case, are entirely different, as, what the petitioner intended to purchase is only 25 cents of land, which is an unapproved plot from his vendor, for agricultural purpose. In fact, even when the petitioner's vendor, viz., R.Gayathri had settled 1.35 acres of land out of total extent of 1.60 acres of land, to and in favour of her husband, the object and intent behind such sale would make it very clear that the petitioner's vendor has no intention to plot the property and sell the same. Merely because, the petitioner's neighbouring 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025 landowners are indulging in formation of unapproved layouts and selling of the unapproved plots, and, the same cannot sow doubts in the minds of the respondent to refuse to register the sale deed on a premises that the petitioner is attempting to register an unapproved plot in the guise of an agricultural land, inasmuch as, from the very purchase of such an small extent would make it very clear that the petitioner's intention behind such purpose, viz., to put up an agricultural farm, and therefore, the question of bar under Section 22-A of the Act would not arise nor does the Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, would come into picture. As long as the petitioner has not plotted the land, there is no question of obtaining prior permission for registration of the sale deed and when the intention of the petitioner is not to plot and sell the property, the respondent is not empowered to refuse to register the sale deed by citing the bar contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
6. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent is untenable and has to be quashed. Accordingly, the refusal check slip issued by the respondent impugned in 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025 this Writ Petition is quashed. The respondent is directed to register the sale deed as and when the same is re-presented by the petitioner's vendor for the purpose of registration in the name of the petitioner forthwith without any further delay.
7. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
06.10.2025 sd Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no To THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR MARAKKANAM, TINDIVANAM TALUK VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm ) W.P.No.677 of 2025 W.P.No.677 of 2025 06.10.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 12:57:42 pm )