2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1521
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
D.Rajamanickam – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition No.426 of 2022
Mrs.Radha Gopalan, Senior Counsel for Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Addl. Government Pleader
The bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act cannot be interpreted to totally restrict the sale of property retained by the owner of an unapproved layout, as it can be used for purposes other than housing development.
Headnote:
Registration Act - Settlement Deed - Section 22-A - Refusal to Register Unapproved House Sites
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, along with others, purchased a piece of land and developed it into house sites. Some plots were sold, and the remaining land was retained by the petitioner. The petitioner presented a settlement deed in favor of his son for the remaining land, but the registering authority refused to register it, citing the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and a circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act cannot be interpreted to mean that it totally restricts the sale of the property retained by the owner of an unapproved layout. At most, such restriction could be applied only in respect of the sale of such land as a house site for the purpose of construction without the permission for development from the planning authority concerned. The court directed the respondent to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act and the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration prohibit the registration of the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favor of his son for the remaining land retained by him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act cannot be interpreted to mean that it totally restricts the sale of the property retained by the owner of an unapproved layout. The owner can use the land for purposes other than housing development, and the registration of the settlement deed cannot be refused.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the refusal check slip is set aside. The respondent is directed to register the settlement deed presented by the petitioner within 15 days.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the Refusal Check Slip dated 01.09.2021 issued by the respondent refusing to register the settlement deed dated 01.09.2021 executed by the petitioner in favour of his son-D.R.Mohan and register the same.
2.0 The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2.1. The petitioner, his wife-Madheswari and Son-T.R.Mohan purchased a piece of land admeasuring 2.65 Acres out of 2.95 Acres, comprised in Ward No.7, T.S.No.1268 which is now Salem Town Ward B Block 38, Town Survey No.8 along with one Srinivasan Son of Govindarajan and V.Devarajan, Son of Vijayan from one A.N.Balakrishnan Son of Sengodagounder and others through sale deed dated 08.01.1997 registered as Doc.No.21/1998 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Salem Town. Further, one of the purchasers namely V.Devarajan along with his wife T.Nirmala and others purchased lands in the same survey number from the very same vendor by way of sale deed dated 08.01.1997 registered as Doc.No.20/1998. 2.2. The petitioner, his wife and son along with others and Devarajan, his 2 of 20 wife and others had purchased the above mentioned landed properties only in order to develop the same by plotting out as house sites and therefore, they joined together and executed a General Power of Attorney dated 09.02.2000 in favour of D.R.Mohan which was registered as Doc.No.51 of 2000. Accordingly, the lands were developed into house sites after forming roads and a few plots had also been sold out. Thereafter, due to some disputes arose among the promoters, some of the agreement-holders filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.61 of 2003, 62 of 2003, 63 of 2003 and 84 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem. Pending suits, the parties entered into a compromise and the same was reduced into writing. Accordingly, based on a compromise entered into and a joint memo of compromise dated 14.09.2009, the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, by judgement and decree dated 28.04.2011 disposed of the suit in O.S.N.61 of 2023 recording the settlement. The decree in O.S.No.61 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, was registered on 12.01.2012 as Doc.No.123/2012 on the file of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Salem.
2.3. According to the petitioner, the property which is the subject-matter in the settlement deed was retained by the land owners/promoters after selling all other house sites. Under the compromise decree some of the house sites were 3 of 20 allotted to the petitioner. Pursuant to such compromise decree, the petitioner sold some of the house sites to various persons and executed a settlement on 23.06.2020 in favour of one V.Bakkiyam, who is the wife of Vijayan and the settlement was registered as Doc.No.1787/2020. In respect of the remaining extent of land which he has retained, when he presented a settlement deed in favour of his son in respect of 2362.5 square feet of land comprised in Resurvey Ward No.J Block 38, T.S.No.53, which is now 53/46 and 3508 square feet comprised in Resurvey Ward J, Block 38, T.S.No.53, which is now Resurvey No.53/47, the same was refused to be registered by the respondent citing the bar contained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Circular No.29945/C1/2015 dated 21.06.2017 issued by the Inspector General of Registration directing the petitioner to get approval of the Department of Town and Country Planning and Development Officer (DTCP) as it is an unapproved house site. It is this order which is now under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the house sites had already been sold, the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration would not apply to the facts of his case.
4 of 20
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Joint 1 Sub Registrar (In charge), Sub Registrar, Salem (West). The Officer while admitting that the propert