SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Balamurugan – Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar, Salem & Another – Respondents
WP No. 28593 of 2022
Decided On : 11-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Ganesan, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Ravichander, Special Government Pleader.

Requirement of approval from the Planning Authority for any land proposed to be used as a house site, in line with the legislative intention to regulate house sites and ensure buildings are not constructed without approval.

Headnote:

Refusal Check Slip - Validity of Refusal Check Slip - Registration Act, 1908, Section 22-A, Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 113, Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019 - Summary: The court discussed the validity of the Refusal Check Slip issued by the Sub Registrar, focusing on the application of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and its relation to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The court emphasized the requirement of approval from the Planning Authority for any land proposed to be used as a house site, regardless of immediate construction plans. It highlighted the legislative intention to regulate house sites and ensure buildings are not constructed without approval from the Planning Authority.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought registration of a Sale Deed for a property but was issued a Refusal Check Slip by the Sub Registrar, citing the need for approval from the Planning Authority under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the requirement of approval from the Planning Authority for any land proposed to be used as a house site, in line with the legislative intention to regulate house sites and ensure buildings are not constructed without approval.

Issues: Validity of the Refusal Check Slip, Application of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, Requirement of Planning Authority approval for house sites.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of approval from the Planning Authority for any land proposed to be used as a house site, regardless of immediate construction plans, in line with the legislative intention to regulate house sites and ensure buildings are not constructed without approval.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Refusal Receipt No.91712211/2022, T.P.No.134113184/2022, Support Request No.9981764 dated 29.09.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to register the document submitted by the petitioner.)

The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the Sub Registrar in proceedings dated 29.09.2022.

2. The petitioner states that he entered into Sale Agreement on 11.08.2022 with his vendor for purchase of the property situated in S.No.474/5C1 to an extent of 6 cents at Mallikuntham Village, Mettur Taluk, Mecheri Sub Registrar Office, Salem District.

3. The petitioner presented the Sale Deed executed on 29.09.2022 for registration. The second respondent returned the document along with the impugned Refusal Check Slip on the ground that the petitioner has to get approval from the Planning Authority in view of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.78, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017, regarding regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules. As per the said Rules, ''Layout'' means “(i) division of land into plots exceeding 8 (eight) in numbers in Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area; and (ii) division of land into plots by introducing a new road or street in areas other than Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area”.

5. In the present case, there is no such layout formed and the petitioner has proposed to purchase land to an extent of six cents and thus the application of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, is incorrect.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration in the letter dated 18.03.2020, wherein based on G.O.Ms.No.78, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017, a clarification was issued.

7. Relying on the said clarification, it is stated that the Sale Deed presented by the petitioner is to be registered.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, raised an objection by stating that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.78, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017, has no application regarding the registration to be made under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

9. G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 04.05.2017, was issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department regarding regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules under Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972). Therefore, the said Government Order is inapplicable with reference to the registration to be made under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The clarification issued by the Inspector General of Registration pertaining to a particular case, cannot be now relied upon by the petitioner, since the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 04.05.2017 is inapplicable.

10. Considering the arguments of the respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, let us now consider the scope of Section 22-A(2) which stipulates “instrument relating to the transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission for the development of such land from Planning Authority concerned shall be refused.”

11. Sub Section (2) to Section 22-A of the Act, do not speak about the layouts or formation of layouts or otherwise. It reiterates instrument relating to transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission from Planing Authority concerned for the development of such land. Therefore, any land, which is proposed to be used as house site, requires permission from the Planning Authori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top