[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Anni Sahaya Shoba vs The Sub Registrar on 13 May, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P(MD)No.14138 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.05.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P(MD)No.14138 of 2026
Anni Sahaya Shoba ... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Kottaram Sub Registrar Office,
Kottaram,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent(s)
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
entire records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip issued by the
respondent in RFL/Kottaram/98/2026, dated 07.05.2026 and to quash the same
as unconstitutional and illegal, consequently directing the respondent to register
the sale deed document dated 07.05.2026 forthwith and pass such further or
other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case and thus render justice.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.14138 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.J.Amjad Khan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated
07.05.2026 issued by the respondents whereby the registration of a sale deed
dated 07.05.2026 was refused on the ground that the subject land is an
unapproved plot comprised in Survey No. 97/10A1, measuring an extent of 404
Ares (10 cents), situated at Kottaram Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel appearing
on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The subject property was originally owned by one Glory Sheila Kumar,
from whom the petitioner’s vendor had purchased the property by a registered
sale deed dated 19.01.2024 vide Document No.288/2024. After purchase, the
entire revenue records were mutated in the name of the petitioner’s vendor and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he was also issued Patta No.5002. According to the petitioner, the subject
property is an agricultural vacant site. The petitioner, in turn, purchased the said
property and the petitioner’s vendor executed a sale deed in favour of the
petitioner dated 07.05.2026, which was presented for registration before the
respondents. However, it was refused for registration and a refusal check slip
was issued on the ground that no proper approval had been obtained from the
competent authority in respect of the subject property.
4. Similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court and as such, the
reason for refusal of registration is no longer res integra. This Court, in W.P.
(MD) No. 3111 of 2026, dated 28.04.2026, held as follows:
“2. In such cases, the matter is no longer res-integra and is
governed by the Judgement of this Court in Sankarakumar & another
-Vs- The Sub-Registrar, Panpozhi (W.P.(MD) No.29522 of 2025). This
Court considered the purport of Section 22-A(2), the need to balance the
Constitutional Right of the owners of the property under Article 300-A
with the enforcement of development control legislation and the rules
framed thereunder. It held that, irrespective of the location of the land, if
the executant and the claimant of the document express an intention to
use the property as such, without converting its nature, then, irrespective
of the size of the land, boundary, abutting a pathway/road, etc., the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
document shall be registered, on condition that affidavits in four sets be
executed and filed before this Court, the Sub- Registrar, the local body
and the TANGEDCO. It is made clear that the party breaching the
undertaking will also be liable for contempt of this Court, in addition to
other actions.
3. The affidavit containing the following undertaking shall be
executed by the claimant in whose favour the title vests under the
document:
"I undertake not to use the property as a
residential/commercial site or such other change of user,
unless due permission is obtained from the planning
authority. Without due approval, I will not develop the site
by changing its use, and will not put up any residential or
commercial building. I am aware that I may be liable to
punishment for contempt of Court for violating this
undertaking. I am also aware that I will not be entitled to
claim electricity connection or water, sewerage, and other
connections or services from the local authority or any other
authority unless due conversion is made as per the
permission of the planning authority."
4. This writ petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned order shall stand set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The claimant under the document refused for registration, in
whose name the property vests, shall execute a duly notarised affidavit in
four sets and file one set before this Court within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of the web copy of this Order; Only upon filing of
the same, a certified copy of this Order shall be issued to the petitioner.
(iii) Along with the certified copy of the Order of this Court, the
petitioner will be entitled to represent the document along with three sets
of affidavits.
(iv) Upon representation, the document shall be registered if there
is no other impediment.
(v) Along with the document, the affidavit filed shall also be
scanned and uploaded.
(vi) The two other sets shall be dispatched to the local authority
and the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer of TANGEDCO concerned, who
shall at all times consider the aforesaid undertaking and act accordingly.
(vii) If the petitioner fails to file an affidavit as directed within four
weeks of receipt of the web copy of this Order, the writ petition shall
stand dismissed.
(viii) No costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. In view of the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.3111 of 2026
dated 28.04.2026 and following the ratio laid down therein as extracted above,
this Court is of the considered view that the impugned refusal check slip dated
07.05.2026 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 07.05.2026 is set
aside and the writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 28.04.2026. No
costs.
13.05.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To: -
The Sub Registrar,
Kottaram Sub Registrar Office,
Kottaram,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
PKN
13.05.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
