Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1812

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
T. Pratheeba - Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P (MD). No.331 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) No.225 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Aravinthan for M/S.Aran Legal Consultancy
For the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Maharajan, Special Government Pleader.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Aravinthan for M/S.Aran Legal Consultancy
For the Respondent: Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader

Unapproved plots cannot be registered without regularization as per Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A(2) - Challenge to refusal of registration of sale deed based on audit objections and unapproved plots - Court upheld refusal, emphasizing the need for regularization of unapproved plots for registration. (Paras 6-10)

(B) Regularization of unapproved plots - Court clarified that plots without prior registration cannot be registered, and consequences of non-regularization include denial of utilities and building approvals. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to register a sale deed for unapproved plots that were previously partitioned and sold, but faced refusal due to Section 22-A(2) objections.

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the refusal to register based on the legal framework governing unapproved plots.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the refusal to register the sale deed was justified under Section 22-A(2) given the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unapproved plots cannot be registered under the Registration Act without proper regularization.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

ORDER :

(G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip issued by the third respondent, dated 26.12.2024 thereby, refused to register the sale deed on the ground there is a bar under Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act.

2. By consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. The Punja lands to an extent of about 0.11.17 hectares (27.58 cents) being the lands situate on the western 1 acre 20 cents on the southern 3 acre 56 cents leaving the 3 cents on the North East, in the total extent of 7 acre 12 cents (2.88.25 Hectares) comprised in Survey No.887, Levinjipuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District belong to one R.Sundaram vide Sale Deed under Document No.898 of 2016 with the Sub-Registrar of Panagudi, the third respondent herein. On 07.01.2021 the said R.Sundaram sold the said lands to one T.Ulaganathan, Devi Chandran, Srinivasan, Kala and Krishnasamy and the said Sale has been registered with the Sub-Registrar, Panagudi as Document No.87 of 2021.

5. The said T.Ulaganathan, Devi Chandran, Srinivasan, Kala and Krishnasamy partitioned the said lands and the terms of the partition were reduced to writing and the partition deed came to be registered with the third respondent as Document No.2006 of 2022. As per the said partition out of 27.58 cents comprised thereon, 10.25 cents comprised thereon in Survey No. 887 has been allotted to T.Ulaganathan. The petitioner approached the said T.Ulaganathan towards purchase of the said lands to an extent of 10.25 cents allotted to him vide partition deed in document number 2006/2022, dated 12.05.2022. The said sale deed was presented for registeration, however, it was refused to register the same on the ground that there is a bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

6. On perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition revealed that already there was an audit objection in respect of registration of the partition deed by the petitioner's vendor and another. In respect of its sub division into house plots the provision under Section 22-A of the Registration Act was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 2 of 2009 with effect from 20.10.2016. It is relevant to extract Section 22-A of the Act hereunder:-

“22-A. Refusal to register certain documents .—

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any of the following documents, namely:—

(1) instrument relating to the transfer of immovable properties by way of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease,—

(i) belonging to the State Government or the local authority or Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority established under section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971;

(ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution to which the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is applicable;

(iii) donated for Bhoodan Yagna and vested in the Tamil Nadu State Bhoodan Yagna Board established under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1958; or

(iv) of Wakfs which are under the superintendence of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board established under the Wakf Act, 1995, unless a sanction in this regard issued by the competent authority as provided under the relevant Act or in the absence of any such authority, an authority so authorised by the State Government for this purpose, is produced before the registering officer;

(2) instrument relating to the transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without the permission for development of such land from planning authority concerned:

Provided that the house sites without such permission may be registered if it is shown that the same house site has been previously registered as house site.

Explanation I.—For the purpose of this section ‘local auth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document