Madras High Court
Salethu vs The Sub Registrar on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025
Salethu ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Kariapatti,
Virudhunagar Distirct. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the
impugned Refusal Check Clip, Refusal Number RFL/Kariapatti/35/2025, dated
25.06.2025 issued by the respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, direct the respondent to register the Sale deed dated 21.06.2025
executed by Vinoth, Son of Karunanithi and his wife namely, Kavipriya in favour
of Salethu, Son of Susai, in respect of 22 cents out of 44 cents out of punja lands
in 20/4A measuring 1.32.76 Hectares i.e., 3 Acres and 28 cents situated at
V.Nangoor Village, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District and release the same within
the time limit fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.L.Kannan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sasikumar
Additional Govt. Pleader
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 issued by the respondent and consequently, direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 15.04.2025.
2. Through the impugned order, the respondent refused to register the sale deed by citing Section 22A of the Registration Act, on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained DTCP plan approval.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is trying to register a partition deed, for which 22A approval is not necessary. Further, the petitioner is transferring 22 cents of land as agricultural punja land, which is more than 20 cents. Therefore, 22A of the Act will not be applicable. He further relying on W.P(MD)No.7318 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025, wherein the learned Single Judge held that Section 22A(2) will be applicable only when agricultural land is transferred as a house plot without prior permission of the appropriate authority. In the present case, the petitioner is selling the land as punja land, without conversion into a housing site. Therefore, Section 22A(2) will not be applicable. Further, the issue has already been settled by another learned Single Judge in the case of D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar, Salem 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm ) W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025 (West), in W.P.No.426 of 2022 dated 01.07.2024. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied on another learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No. 6605 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025, wherein it was held that if the agriculture land is less than 10 cents, it can always be dealt with and such clarification has already been given and which was taken note of this Court in various orders passed earlier. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“5.In the considered view of this Court, if the agricultural land is less than ten cents, it can always be dealt with and such a clarification has already been given and which was taken note of by this Court in various orders passed earlier.
6.In view of the above, the petitioner shall make a specific recital in the Sale Deed that the property is being sold/conveyed only as an agricultural land and the extent of the property shall also be described in the terms of cents. If the same is complied with, the Sale Deed shall be entertained and registered, if it is otherwise in order.”
4. Similarly, in W.P(MD)No.5756 of 2025 dated 04.03.2025, another learned Single Judge held that Section 22A(2) will apply only when agricultural land is sold as a housing site without prior permission. The said issue was also considered by the Honorable Division Bench in W.A.(MD)No.1158 of 2025 dated 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm ) W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025 16.07.2025, wherein it is held as under:
“3.It is too obvious that the appellant had only purchased a piece of house site in an unapproved lay out. Only if the extent of land purchased by the appellant is 20 cents or above, it can be said to be for agricultural purposes. Paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the order of the learned Single Judge read as follows:-
“7.Though the proviso to Section 22-A(2) of the Act says that the house sites without such permission may be registered if it is shown that the same house site has been previously registered as house site, since the petitioner is the developer and it is the first sale, the proviso to Section 22-A(2) is not applicable to the case on hand. That apart, the Regularization of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were made by G.O.(Ms)No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017. The Rule 3 of says about cut off date for considering the regularization of unapproved plots and layouts. It is relevant to extract Rule 3 hereunder:
“3.Cut-off date for considering regularisation of unapproved plots and layouts.– Only those unapproved layouts where a part or full number of plots have been sold through a registered sale deed as on 20th October, 2016 shall be considered for regularization under these rules. Similarly, all plots including unsold ones are eligible for regularization in layouts where at least a part of the total number of plots have been sold through a registered sale deed as on 20th October, 2016. Individual plot in a sub-division registered by a sale or title deed as on 20th October, 2016 shall also be eligible for regularization. As proof and evidence, the plot holder or the layout promoter is required to furnish copies of the sale deed or title deed for the plots sold. Agreement for sale or General Power of Attorney shall not be considered as evidence for proof of sale of plot.”
8.From the above, it is clear that all plots including unsold ones are eligible for regularization in layouts, where at least a part of the total number of plots have been sold through a registered sale 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm ) W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025 deed as on 20.10.2016 and individual plot in a sub-division registered by a sale or title deed as on 20.10.2016 shall also be eligible for regularization. Therefore, the subject plot, which is now stopped for registration, is required for regularization. It is being the first sale, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the case on hand.
9.Thus, it is clear that the unapproved plots cannot be registered and it is liable to be regularised. That apart, the consequences of non-regularisation if the house plot is not regularised, electricity, water supply and other amenities shall not be extended to such unapproved plot or layout. Such unapproved plot shall not be registered under the Registration Act 1908. Further, no building approval shall be given by the authorities concerned for such unapproved plot. In order to give effect to the consequences, the plots shall be regularised in the manner known to law. Therefore, the subject property is dropped for registration and it requires regularisation.”
5. Therefore, following the above orders, this Court is of the considered opinion that if agriculture land is sold as agriculture land with an extent of more than 20 cents, the provisions of section 22A(2) of the Act will not be applicable.
In the present case, since the petitioner is transferring 22 cents of land under a partition deed, Section 22A(2) of the Act is not attracted. The impugned order is a clear case of non-application of mind and the same is hereby quashed. The official respondents are directed to register the partition deed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm ) W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025
6. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
29.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
PJL
To
The Sub Registrar,
Kariapatti,
Virudhunagar Distirct
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )
W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm ) W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY, J.
PJL ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.20470 of 2025 DATED : 29.08.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 07:35:35 pm )