Madras High Court
Sarath Subramanian vs The District Registrar on 26 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.3740 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD) No.3740 of 2025
Sarath Subramanian ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Registrar,
Trichirappalli District,
Cantonment,
Trichirappalli.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Joint No.III Sub Registrar's Office,
Trichirappalli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned refusal Check slip passed by the 2nd
respondent herein dated 28.01.2025 in RFL/Joint No.III SRO
Trichy/9/2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd
respondent to register the discharge receipt dated 28.01.2025 assigned
with TP/206349060/2025 in accordance with law within the time frame
fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.K.S.Kathiravan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
W.P.(MD)No.3740 of 2025
For Respondents :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition seeks to quash the proceedings of the
second respondent in RFL/Joint No.III SRO Trichy/9/2025 dated
28.01.2025.
2. The petitioner claims that one Jeyanthi is the owner of the
property in S.Nos.130/2A and 130/4, admeasuring an extent of 18.34
cents, at Allur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Trichirappalli District. A portion
of this property was alienated in favour of the petitioner on 07.11.2022,
vide Doc.No.5241/2022. After the petitioner had become the owner of
the said property, he had registered a mortgage deed in favour of
M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, Trichirapalli
for a sum of Rs.25,92,000/-. This document was also registered on the
file of the second respondent on 11.11.2022.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner availed loans from the State Bank
of India, RACPC Branch, Trichy and settled the entire liability in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
of M/s.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. The amount
having been extinguished, M/s.Housing Development Finance
Corporation Limited executed a discharge receipt on 28.01.2025. When
the discharge receipt was presented for registration, the second
respondent refused to register the same and passed the impugned order.
The ground of refusal being that the permission of the Local Planning
Authority was not in order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ
petition.
4. When the matter came up for admission, I requested
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, to get
instructions. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar has obtained written instructions from
the second respondent.
5. According to the second respondent, the documents were not
registered, since the approval said to have been given by the Local
Planning Authority is suspect and the Block Development Officer,
Anthanallur had written to the second respondent not to consider the
documents on the basis of the alleged planning permission said to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
been obtained by the petitioner's predecessor in title.
6. I heard Mr.K.S.Kathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the
respondents.
7. To apply Section 22-(A)(2) of the Registration Act of 1908, the
instrument sought to be registered should be one of transfer of ownership
of lands. In case, it does not fall under the category, then it does not
attract the said Section. In the present case, what the petitioner seeks to
register is the discharge receipt given by M/s.Housing Development
Finance Corporation Limited, demonstrating that the petitioner had
extinguished the mortgage that he had raised with that entity on
11.11.2022. This is not a document, by which, ownership is transferred
from the petitioner in favour of any third party. On the contrary, it records
the factum of discharge of a mortgage. Therefore, the first submission of
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar that Section 22-(A)(2) would apply cannot be
countenanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
8. Insofar as the plea that the predecessor in title of the petitioner
had not properly availed the layout plan from the Block Development
Officer of Anthanallur is concerned, I feel, this issue too is covered by a
judgment of Honourable Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR rendered in
D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in W.P. No.426 of
2022 dated 01.07.2024. The learned Judge had held 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 mater 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
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 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.”
9. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order cannot
be sustained. The Writ Petition stands ordered and the impugned order
passed by the second respondent in RFL/Joint No.III SRO Trichy/9/2025
dated 28.01.2025 is quashed. There shall be a direction to the second
respondent to register the discharge receipt issued by M/s.Housing
Development Finance Corporation Limited on 28.01.2025 within a
period of two weeks from today. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
Call for 'reporting compliance' after two weeks.
Index :Yes / No 26.02.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
mm
To
1.The District Registrar,
Trichirappalli District,
Cantonment,
Trichirappalli.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Joint No.III Sub Registrar's Office,
Trichirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mm
26.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 11:34:55 am )
