Madras High Court
M.Natrayan vs The Sub Registrar Joint 2 on 25 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.4983 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.4983 of 2025
M.Natrayan ... Petitioner
vs.
The Sub Registrar Joint 2,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Dindigul. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned refusal check slip passed by the
respondent through proceedings in RFL/Sub Registrar Joint 2
Dindigul/6/2025 dated 20.01.2025 and to quash the same and further
directing the respondent to register the sale deed of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Mari Chellaiah Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.4983 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the respondent in
RFL/Sub Registrar Joint 2 Dindigul/6/2025, dated 20.01.2025.
2. The petitioner states that his vendor one Veeraramu was
proposing to sell his property situated in S.No.251/1B3 of Sinthalagundu
Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District. On coming to know of
this proposal, the petitioner approached the said Veeraramu and entered
into negotiations with him. Pursuant to the negotiations, the petitioner
also paid the entire sale consideration to his vendor and purchased the
land to an extent of 11 cents in the aforesaid survey number. In this
regard, when the petitioner presented the sale deed on 20.01.2025, the
same came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res-
integra. It has been settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Mr.Justice.N.Sathish Kumar in the case of D.Rajamanickam Vs., The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in W.P.No.426 of 2022, dated 01.07.2024.
The learned Judge after referring several authorities and circulars had
concluded as follows:
. “.......17. The clarification issued above would indicate
that the bar contained under Section 22-A is only with regard to
unapproved lay out which was formed without the permission for
development from planning authority concerned and new roads
or streets have been laid after the amendment and not in respect
of the Unapproved Layout prior to the amendment came into
being. Such view of the matter as the layout was formed in 2020
and several plots had already been sold, registration of settlement
deed executed by the petitioner for the remaining extent of land
retained and held by the petitioner in favour of his son cannot be
refused. As already held such land can be used for any purposes
other than housing development. Even any one of the adjacent
land owners may wish to purchase such land for the purpose of
using it as vacant land or for any other purpose other than
housing development. Therefore, transfer of such land cannot be
said to be totally prohibited, if transfer of such land is totally
prohibited, it would certainly violate the constitutional right
guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The
very object of introducing Section 22-A by way of Tamil Nadu Act
is only to restrict conversion of agricultural land or any other
land as unapproved house sites without the permission for
development of such land from planning authority concerned.
Therefore, bar contained under Section 22-A cannot be applied in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
a mechanical fashion and registration cannot be refused and
restraining the owner of such land from using the land for any
other purposes other than housing development.......”
5. Apart from this position, a comparison of the earlier sale deed
with the present sale deed shows that the transfer is not of plots to attract
Section 22A of the Registration Act. It is only the land, that was under
the custody of Mr.Veeraramu as 'Punja land', is being sold to the writ
petitioner. It is being alienated as 'Punja land'. As the nature of land is
not being changed, Section 22A is not attracted.
6. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition succeeds
and the impugned refusal check slip passed by the respondent vide
proceedings in RFL/Sub Registrar Joint 2 Dindigul/6/2025, dated
20.01.2025, is set aside.
7. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent shall
register the document within two(2) weeks from the date of its
presentation by the petitioner. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
8. Post on 12.03.2025 'for reporting compliance'.
Index :Yes / No 25.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Sub Registrar Joint 2,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
25.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2025 02:20:30 pm )
