Madras High Court
A.Ganesan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 25 October, 2024
W.P.No.31692 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
W.P No.31692 of 2024
and
WMP.No.34441 of 2024
A.Ganesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Joint 4 Kanchipuram Sub Registrar Officer,
Kamarajar Road, Taluk Office Campus,
Kanchipuram - 631 501. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.18 of 2024,
dated 08.01.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law
and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the executed sale
deed dated 10.04.2023 and release the registered sale deed to the petitioner
within the time period stipulated by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.31692 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Santosh
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second
respondent refusing to register the sale deed presented for registration on the
ground that the petitioner failed to produce any order passed by the planning
authority approving plan for the development of the subject property as a house
site and also on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce patta in respect
of the property covered under the document.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the subject property originally
belonged to one K.Kalayanasundram and he entered into an agreement with
one Valayapathy on 07.03.1988 for sale of the same. Subsequently, the said
K.Kalayanasundram failed to execute the sale deed and died leaving behind his
legal heirs. The said Valayapathy instituted a suit for specific performance
against the legal heirs of K.Kalayanasundram and the same was decreed on
27.11.2013 with a direction to execute the sale deed. The sale deed was
executed by court on 29.04.2019 in favour of Valayapathy as per the decree
passed it. Subsequently, the said Valayapathy settled the subject property to
the petitioner's vendor under registered settlement deed dated 03.05.2019.
Now, the petitioner purchased a portion of the said property and the sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
executed in favour of the petitioner was presented for registration before the
second respondent, and the same was refused on the ground that the petitioner
failed to produce any planning permission from the competent planning
authority and patta does not stand in favour of the petitioner's vendor.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying on sections 22-A (2)
of the Registration Act, submitted that there was no conversion of vacant land
into house site before execution of the sale deed and therefore, the reasoning
assigned to refuse registration is not correct and bar under said section is not
attracted. It is further submitted that the failure to produce the revenue
document, such as, patta in the name of the petitioner or his vendor, cannot be
a ground to refuse registration, in the light of the judgment of this Court in
Subramani vs. Sub Registrar and others reported in (2024) 3 MLJ 588.
4. Mr. B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes
notice for the respondents, submitted that the challenging the order impugned
herein, the petitioner already filed an appeal under Section 73 of the
Registration Act before the District Registrar, and the same is pending.
5. In view of the fact that the order impugned in this writ petition has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
already been challenged by the petitioner by availing alternative remedy of
statutory appeal under Section 73 of the Registration Act, this Court is not
inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed. However, the appellant authority viz., District Registrar,
Kanchipuram is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is directed
to mark a copy of this order to the District Registrar, Kanchipuram, who shall
dispose the same in the light of proviso to section 22 A (2) of the Registration
Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.10.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
av
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai - 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Joint 4 Kanchipuram Sub Registrar Officer,
Kamarajar Road, Taluk Office Campus,
Kanchipuram - 631 501.
3. The District Registrar, Kanchipuram.
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
av
25.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
