Madras High Court
S.Muniyandi vs The Joint Sub-Registrar No.Ii on 27 February, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.5251 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.5251 of 2025
and W.M.P(MD).Nos.3849 and 3850 of 2025
S.Muniyandi ... Petitioner
vs.
The Joint Sub-Registrar No.II,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. ... 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 of the impugned order or direction in the nature of a writ to call
for the records of the impugned refusal check slip vide proceeding in
Refusal No.RFL/2 No.II Joint Sub Registrar Sivagangai /6/2025 dated
20.02.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further
directing the respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed dated
20.02.2025 in respect of the property bearing Town Survey No.23/2B
Part in South Market Street, Block C, Ward 6, Sivagangai Town.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam
Government Advocate
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5251 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner had attempted to alienate 3.3 cents admeasuring
1440.5 sq.ft., in favour of one Hakim Mohammed. He presented a sale
deed to that effect before the respondent. The same was rejected by way
of the impugned order. The reason given in the impugned order is that
the sale is hit by Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act.
2. The petitioner states that one John Irudhayaraj had purchased a
property in S.No.119/2 to an extent of 16 cents situated at Kathattivayal,
Mela Vaniyangudi Group, Sivagangai District, on 11.05.2011. He
expired on 31.01.2018. His legal heirs, namely, Prakasi, Jersya sheela,
Thomas and Packiyam alienated 11 cents in favour of the petitioner on
03.07.2024. The petitioner in turn attempted to alienate 3.3 cents, which
was interfered with by the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I heard Mr.I.Robert Chandra Kumar for the petitioner and
Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, learned Government Advocate, who takes
notice for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
4. Mr.I.Roberty Chandra Kumar reiterated the contentions found in
the affidavit and Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam relied upon the reasons set
forth in the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the same.
6. The issue has been decided by the learned Single Judge in the
case of D.Rajamanickam Vs., The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in
W.P.No.426 of 2022, dated 01.07.2024. The learned Judge in paragraph
17 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
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 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.......”
7. As the said judgment covers the issue, I merely have to follow
the same. Consequently, the impugned refusal check slip vide
proceeding in Refusal No.RFL/2 No.II Joint Sub Registrar
Sivagangai /6/2025, dated 20.02.2025, on the file of the respondent is
quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondent to register the sale
deed presented by the petitioner on 20.02.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
8. In result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index :Yes / No 27.02.2025
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
To
The Joint Sub-Registrar No.II,
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 12:35:32 pm )
