Madras High Court
Rajeswari vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.2 on 11 March, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.4509 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.4509 of 2025
Rajeswari ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to check slip no. 19/2024 dated 10.12.2024 issued by the
respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the
respondent to register the sale deed dated 10.12.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Meenakshi Rama Prabu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
___________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
W.P.(MD) No.4509 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner seeks to quash the refusal check slip dated
10.12.2024 and consequently, seeks mandamus to register the sale deed
of the same date.
2. The petitioner pleads that the property situated in S.No.160/16,
to an extent of 21.5 cents, belonged to her mother-in-law, Muniyaee. She
had obtained the property as Stridhana from her father, Krishnan
Ambalam. Muniyaee had two sons, by name, Shanmugam @
Shamuganadhan and Raja. Muniyaee's husband, Muthalagu Ambalam,
predeceased her. Muniyaee and her younger son, Raja, executed a sale
deed in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 94 cents.
3. The petitioner had plotted out the property into 6 house sites and
had alienated them on the following dates: 27.10.1997, 10.09.1998,
04.02.2016, 18.02.2016, 29.02.2016 and 21.04.2016. After such
alienation, she had, in her name, the remaining extent of 21.5 cents. She
executed a sale deed in favour of one Karuppaiah on 10.12.2024. The
sale was as a punja land and presented the same for registration.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
4. The respondent refused to register the document on the ground
that the petitioner had earlier sold 6 portion of properties as house sites
and thereafter, it is unacceptable that she sells an extent of 21.5 cents as
punja land. He relied upon Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) to arrive at the said conclusion.
5. When the matter came up for admission on 20.02.2025,
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar took notice and sought time for getting instructions.
I adjourned the matter.
6. I have heard Mr.C. Meenakshi Rama Prabhu for the petitioner
and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
7. Mr.Meenakshi Rama Prabhu urged that the property is being
sold as an agricultural land and therefore, it will not attract Section 22-
A(2) of the Act.
8. Per contra, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar argues that the petitioner had
plotted out her holdings into 6 different plots and had sold them on
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
various occasions. He pleas that, as the property had been
unauthorisedly plotted out, the petitioner would not be entitled to
alienate the remaining extent as punja land. He further states that the
sale would attract Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and
therefore, it should not be registered. He relies upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Anbuselvan Vs. The District Registrar
and others [W.A(MD)No.2633 of 2024 dated 13.02.2025] to substantiate
his submissions.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
10. Insofar as the first ground of rejection that Section 22-A(2) of
the Act would apply to the facts of the case. I have to point out that
Section 22-A(2) of the Act would apply only if the agricultural land is
converted into plots and sold as such. The said provision would not
apply, where the agricultural land is sold as agricultural land. In the
present case, the petitioner is selling her remaining extent of 21.5 cents in
favour of Karuppaiah as agricultural land and therefore, the said
provision is not attracted.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
11. With respect to the second point urged by Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
that the petitioner had illegally plotted out her land and sold the same to
several third parties is concerned, I should recollect the brief history of
Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
12. Originally, when Section 22-A had been inserted, the State of
Tamil Nadu had declared that any document contrary to public policy
should not be registered. As to what is public policy, the Government of
Tamil Nadu had issued a separate order in G.O.(Ms) No.150 Commercial
Taxes Department, dated 22.09.2000. This order, inter alia, stated that
any property which has been unauthorisedly converted as a plot without
approval from the planning authority would be hit by public policy.
13. The constitutional validity of Section 22-A, as originally
enacted, was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in
Captain Dr.R.Bellie and another Vs. The Sub Registrar [2007 (3) CTC
513]. This Court consisting of S.J.Mukhopadhaya,J. and
Mr.R.Sudhakar,J. [as their lordships then were] declared Section 22-A
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
and the G.O issued by the Government as unconstitutional.
14. The ground, on which a document where be held to be contra
to the public policy, under G.O(Ms).No.150 was re-enacted as Section
22-A. Though Section 22-A was brought into the statute by the Tamil
Nadu Act 28 of 2012 on 21.06.2012, it was not notified by the
Government of Tamil Nadu till 20.10.2016. In other words, the Section
was in the statute book, but was not brought to life.
15. A perusal of the Paragraph No.5 of the counter would show
that the alienations, that had been made by the petitioner in favour of the
third parties, had all been done between the period 27.10.1997 to
21.04.2016, when there was no law declaring that an agricultural land
cannot be converted into housing plot without permission of the
Government. This subtle difference, in fact, makes all the difference
between the facts of this case and the one in the Anbuselvan's case
referred to supra.
16. In Anbuselvan's case, a learned Single Judge had recorded that
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
alienation had been made of agricultural plots as house sites after coming
into force of Section 22-A of the Registration Act. The Division Bench
confirmed the view that the registration of agricultural land into housing
plots cannot be done post coming into force of Section 22-A of the
Registration Act. This is clear from the Paragraph No.3 of the said
Judgment.
17. In the facts of the present case, as the alienations had been
made before Section 22-A(2) of the Act had come into force, the
petitioner would not only be entitled to the benefit of the proviso, but I
have to point out the Division bench Judgment would not be applicable
to the facts of the present case.
18. In the light of the above discussions, the writ petition succeeds.
The impugned order is quashed and there shall be a direction to the
respondent to register the sale deed dated 10.12.2024 within a period of
two weeks from the date of uploading of the order. Call on compliance
after three weeks.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
11.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Mac
To
The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,
Sivagangai,
Sivagangai District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Mac
Dated : 11.03.2025
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 10:55:17 am )
