Madras High Court
Gopinath vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 4 March, 2025
W.P(MD)No.5731 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.5731 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)No.4195 of 2025
Gopinath
..Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Registrar (Audit),
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
impugned refusal check slip under Refusal No. RFL/Panagudi/9/2025 passed
by the 3rd respondent dated 24.02.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and
further to direct the 3rd respondent to register the sale deed dated 20.01.2025
executed by the petitioner relating to the property situated under Punja Old S.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
1/7
W.P(MD)No.5731 of 2025
No.1977/24A1A its New S. No.1977/28 measuring to an extent of 5.50 cents
equivalent to 0.02.23 hectares located at Perungudi - II Village, Kavalkinaru,
Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner : Ms.J.Annie Infanta
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Addl. Govt. Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to quash the impugned refusal check slip in
Refusal No. RFL/ Panagudi/9/ 2025 passed by the third respondent dated
24.02.2025 and direct the third respondent to register the sale deed dated
20.01.2025 executed by the petitioner relating to the property measuring an
extent of 5.50 cents equivalent to 0.02.23 hectares comprised in old S.No.
1977/24A1A its New S.No.1977/28 situated at Perungudi - II Village,
Kavalkinaru, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2.The petitioner claims that the aforesaid property belongs to one
Venugopal. The said Venugopal purchased the said property through court
auction in E.P.No.113 of 1979 in O.S.No.62 of 1973 on the file of the Principal
Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The said Venugobal registered the property in Doc.
No.L3/1994 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Panagudi. The petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
purchased the property from the said Venugopal on 24.08.2022 through a
registered sale deed in Doc. No.3601/2022 on the file of the third respondent.
Subsequently, he intended to alienate the property in favour of one Joseph
Sugumar. On 20.01.2025, the document has been presented for registration
before the third respondent. The third respondent refused to register the same
and rejected it under the impugned refusal check slip. Challenging the same,
the present writ petition.
3. Heard Ms.J.Annie Infanta for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sureshkumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. Ms.J.Annie Infanta reiterated the facts raised in the affidavit and
pleaded that by virtue of the Judgment in D.Rajamanickam Vs The Sub
Registrar, Salem [West], W.P.No.426 of 2022 dated 01.07.2024, the impugned
refusal check slip cannot stand scrutiny.
5. Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader states that
a new pathway has been created in the document produced by the writ
petitioner and it has to be treated as a sale of a house site. He relies upon G.O.
(MS).No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
04.05.2017. The said G.O notified the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Unapproved
Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017. Relying upon Rule 15(b) of the Rules, he
pleads that such an unapproved plot or layout should not be registered under
the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 9 of 1908) by the Registration
Department and therefore, the impugned order is valid.
6. I have carefully considered the submission of both sides.
7.Perusal of the document in Doc. No.3601 of 2022 shows that the
transfer is for “mad; GQ;ir” or agricultural land. Similarly, the document
under which, the petitioner transferred the property in favour of his purchaser
one Joseph Sugumar also shows it as “mad; GQ;ir”.
8. Insofar as the plea of application of Section 22A(2) of the Registration
Act is concerned, I should point out that Section 22A(2) applies when a person
transfers an agricultural land as a house site without prior permission of the
appropriate authority. Section 22A(2) does not apply when the transfer is of
agricultural land, as it is. As pointed out earlier, in the present case, the land
has been treated as “mad; GQ;ir” or agricultural land. Therefore, Section 22
A (2) does not apply.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
9. Apart from that, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Unapproved Layouts
and Plots Rules, 2017 is also applicable only when an immovable property is
sold either as a plot or a layout. When that not being the situation, the said Rule
is also not applicable.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and
the impugned refusal check slip under Refusal No. RFL/Panagudi/9/2025
passed by the 3rd respondent dated 24.02.2025 is quashed. The third respondent
is directed to register the sale deed dated 20.01.2025 presented by the petitioner
and release the same. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11. Call the matter on 19.03.2025 for reporting compliance.
04.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes
skn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
To
1.The District Registrar (Audit),
Tirunelveli.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Panagudi,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
skn
Writ Petition(MD)No.5731 of 2025
and
04.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 07:07:34 pm )
