Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2.This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 18.11.2024, thereby, refused to register the sale deed, which was presented for registration in respect of the subject house plot.

3.The petitioners had purchased the properties comprised in Re.Survey No.19/3D to an extent of 3 acres 4 cents and Re.Survey No.33/2 to an extent of 2 acres 56 cents in UDR Patta No.263 (totally 5 acres 60 cents) situated at Poolampatti Village, Madurai North Taluk and now East Taluk, Madurai District on 29.05.2008 from one Muthukaruppan through a registered sale deed in Document No.4023/2008. Thereafter, on 31.07.2008, they had purchased the properties comprised in Re.Survey No.19/1 to an extent of 16 cents, Re.Survey No.19/3B to an extent of 2 acres 2 cents, Re.Survey No.20/3 to an extent of 1 acre 32 cents, Re.Survey No.20/6 to an extent of 34 cents and Re.Survey No.20/9 to an extent of 12 cents in UDR Patta No.263, (totally 3 acres 96 cents) situated at Poolampatti Village, Thamaraipatti, Madurai North Taluk and now, East Taluk, Maduria District. Thereafter, they classified the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis above said properties as 360 housing plots in the name and style of Vaigai Nagar and many plots had been sold to the customers from the year 2008 to 2013. However, it was not an approved layout. While being so, the petitioners sold out the house plots in the year 2024 and executed sale deeds in favour of their respective purchasers in respect of the plot numbers and presented the same for registration on 18.11.2024. However, it was refused to register by the respondent on the ground that the subject plots are unapproved plots and there is a bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3) instrument relating to cancellation of sale deeds without the consent of the person claiming under the said sale deed.”

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 petitioners are the developers and it is the first sale from the total extent of 3 acres 96 cents, 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.”

10.Further, the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of Court in W.P.No.22618 of 2022, dated 02.09.2022 has held that in order to avoid mushroom growth of unapproved layouts and new plots, amendment came into force and there is a bar under Section 22-A of the Act to register the unapproved plots.

11.In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the respondent has rightly refused to register the sale deed, which was presented by the petitioners for registration by the impugned order dated 18.11.2024.