Madras High Court
S.Subramanian vs State Of Tamilnadu on 25 July, 2017
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2017
CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P. No.39474 of 2004
and WP.M.P.No.47045 of 2004
1.S.Subramanian
2.Karuppiah Velar
3.Manicka Velar
4.Amaravathy
5.Periasamy
6.Peria Karuppan
7.Marudhu Muthu
8.A.Periasamy
9.Sundaram
10.Veeramuthu
11.Neelavathy
12.T.Valli
13.C.Murugesan
14.Velu
15.Chellammal
16.Thakshanamurthy
17.Penazhagi
18.Thavamani
19.Saraswathi
20.Ramalingam
21.Poongothai
22.Subramanian .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep .by
Secretary to Govt., Commercial
Taxes & Religious Endowment Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector / Inspector of
Panchayats, Pudukottai District,.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road, Santhome,
Chennai 600 028.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
Pudukottai, Pudukottai District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent passed in his proceedings Na.Ka.A3/3821/2003 dated 15.12.2003 in respect of Survey Nos.140/4D, 140/6B, 140/7, 140/8, 220/3, 220/4, 220/5, 221/5, 222/1, 222/2, 222/3, 222/4, 222/8, 226/1, 226/2, 226/3, 226/4, 226/5A, 226/5B, 226/6B, 226/6C, 227/1, 227/2, 227/3A, 227/3B, 227/3C, 227/4, 227/5A, 227/5B, 227/7, 227/6, 228, 229/1, 229/2, 229/3, 228/4A, 229/5, 229/6, 230/1, 230/2, 230/3, 4, 231/1, 231/2, 238/1, 238/2, 238/3A, 238/3B, 238/5 of Pudukottai Special Panchayats (South) Pudukottai District, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Babu
For Respondents : Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan
Addl. G.P.
* * * * *
O R D E R
There are 22 writ petitioners. An order dated 15.12.2003 bearing Ref.Na.Ka./A3/3821/2003 passed by the second respondent before me, i.e., the District Collector of Pudukottai District, is called in question in this writ petition. This order is hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order', for the sake of brevity and clarity.
2.Subject matter of the writ petition is lands comprised in various Survey numbers (as set out in the prayer extracted supra) of Pudukottai District. In and by the impugned order, the second respondent has sustained the action of the fourth respondent, Sub Registrar, Pudukottai, in refusing registration of sale deeds with regard to lands comprised in various survey numbers set out in the prayer extracted supra. The ground on which the second respondent has sustained the action of the fourth respondent, Sub-Registrar, is that the lands were sought to be registered as house sites (plots) and that there is no approval from appropriate authority for the same.
3.Vide the impugned order, the second respondent has also stated that the approved layout plan is imperative and essential for registration of such documents.
4.With regard to registration of unapproved layouts, after notification of Section 47-A of the Registration Act, 1908, the State has also come out with two sets of Rules, namely, The Tamil Nadu Regularization of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 and The Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-Agriculture Purposes in Non-Planning Areas) Rules, 2017 and published the same in G.O. (Ms.) No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017 and G.O. (Ms.) No.79, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017, respectively.
5.There cannot be any registration de hors the above said provisions and de hors the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.05.2017 made in W.P.No.19566 of 2015 (to which I was a party).
6.Owing to all that have been stated supra, there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order of the second respondent. In any event, even as on the date of the impugned order, writ petitioners had no right to insist that unapproved plots should be registered as housing sites.
7.If the writ petitioner conforms and complies with the obtaining set of Rules, which are now operating, referred to supra, it is open to the writ petitioner to approach the jurisdictional registering authority post compliance. This order will not preclude the writ petitioner from approaching the registering authority, after complying with all the approval procedures that are operating as of today.
8.The writ petitioner has not raised any ground, much less a tenable ground, to suggest that the impugned order is illegal or suffers from any other infirmity.
9.Thus, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, WP.M.P.No.47045 of 2004 is also dismissed.
25.07.2017 Index : Yes/No Website : Yes/No sra To
1.The Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu, Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowment Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
M.Sundar, J.
(sra)
2.The District Collector / Inspector of Panchayats, Pudukottai District.
3.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai 600 028.
4.The Sub-Registrar, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
W.P.No.39474 of 200425.07.2017