The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for planning authority approval for transfer of ownership of lands under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quash the Refusal – Check Slip No.RFL/Bhavani/110/2022 issued by the respondent herein dated 20.09.2022 and further direct the respondent herein to register the sale deed.)

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the refusal check slip issued by the respondent in proceeding dated 20.09.2022 on the ground that the document presented by the petitioner is not registerable under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

2. The facts in nutshell as narrated in the writ petition would reveal that the writ petitioner along with six other persons jointly purchased the property to an extent of 35 cents. All seven persons were to be construed as joint owners and they held undivided share in the whole property. On account of the dispute between the seven individual persons, a suit came to be instituted in O.S.No.9 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Bhavani for partition. The parties settled through Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the decree, the petitioner presented a document to register his portion of the property demarcated based on the partition between seven joint owners.

3. The Sub-Registrar returned the document i.e., partition deed on the ground that the said seven common owners of the entire property have formed a layout by constituting pathways and therefore, an approval is to be obtained under Section 22-A of the Act for registering the document. Production of layout approval is mandatory in view of Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

4. In this background, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that admittedly seven persons jointly purchased the property and they have divided pursuant to the partition agreed between the parties. Therefore, the petitioner has presented a document to register his portion of the property. Partition deed would not fall under the definition of Sub Section (2) to Section 22-A of the Registration Act and therefore, objection raised by the Sub-Registrar is in violation of the very provision. That apart, there is no new right created between the parties. The existing rights alone are reiterated by presenting the partition deed and thus, the objections are untenable.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent raised a serious objection on the ground that the parties are attempting to circumvent the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, through back door entry to avoid layout approval, at no circumstances should be permitted, since it will defeat the very spirit of the amendment made through Section 22-A of the Act.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent further states that the petitioner has intended to create a new right by partitioning the common property and therefore, it is to be considered as transfer of right under Sub Section (2) to Section 22-A of the Act. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.

7. Section 22-A of the Registration Act was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 2012 with effect from 20.10.2016. It deals with Refusal to register certain documents. Accordingly, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register any of the documents enumerated under Section 22-A of the Act. Sub Section (2) to Section 22-A stipulates that “Instrument relating to the transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission for development of such lands from planning authority concerned”.

8. In view of the above condition approval from the planning authority is mandatory for the purpose of conversion of house sites on transfer of ownership.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the parties have never intended to form a layout, but they have partitioned the property for the purpose of ascertaining the individual rights.

10. Whether such a conduct would amounts circumventing the provision or to