The bar under Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act cannot be interpreted to prohibit the owner from dealing with the property for purposes other than housing development.

Challenge in this writ petition is to the Refusal Check Slip dated 20.10.2022 issued by the respondent refusing to register the sale deed dated 20.10.2022 executed by the petitioner in favour of one Nandhini.

2.0. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: 2.1. The petitioner and his brother-Irusan jointly purchased the land measuring an extent of 10.5 cents comprised in S.No.558/A5B situated at Karagadahalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District through sale deed dated 02.03.2011 registered as Doc.No.1095/2011. Thereafter, there was a partition effected among the brothers themselves and the same was registered as Doc.No.1277/2011 dated 18.04.2011. Ever since the date of partition, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property allotted to him under the partition deed including the land measuring an extent of 4620 square feet comprised in S.No.558/A5B allotted to him under the partition deed as absolute owner which is the subject matter in the sale deed in question. He was also given a separate patta for the properties allotted to him.

2.2. The petitioner decided to sell 4620 square feet of land to one Nandhini and when he presented the sale deed on 20.10.2022 for registration, the respondent refuse dto register the sale deed on the groudn that plot 2 of 19 measuring an extent of 4620 square feet in S.No.558/A5B is an unapproved plot. Hence, the writ petition.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Sub Registrar, Palacode inter alia contending that there was a partition in respect of larger extent of land in S.No.558/A between one Erusan, Maathaiyan and Mathaiyan (petitioner herein) and based on such partition, Maathaiyan executed a sale deed for 3924 square fee by creating a passage in S.No.558/1 and that the sale deed was registered as Doc.No.3057/2011. Thereafter, a power of attorney was executed in respect of 40.50 cents by one Erusan and tw others in favour of Pandurangan which was registered as Doc.No.928/2016. Based on such power of attorney, sale deeds were executed in respect of 2339 square feet of land (Doc.No.1306/2016); 1326 square feet (Doc.No.1400/2016); 1289.75 square feet (Doc.No.1435); 1267.5 square feet (Doc.No.1436/2016); and 1326 square feet (Doc.No.1687/2016). Thereafter, Maadaiyan registered a plot measuring an extent of 1309.5 square feet vide Doc.No.1890/2016 . Further, several sale transactions were made by Erusan and two others. A

pathway admeasuring 1320 square feet was gifted to the Commissioner, Palacode Panchayat by way of registered Doc.No.25606/2022. After the several sales, now a remaining extent of 4620 square feet is left in the unapproved 3 of 19 layout which cannot be sold without proper approval from the District Town Planning Office and Panchayat (Local Body) as per Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner was advised to get approval from the authorities concerned. The order passed by the respondent refusing to register the sale deed citing the bar contained in Section 22-A (2) of the Registration Act cannot be found faulted with.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that out of the larger extent which was developed and plotted out as house sites, several plots were sold to various persons much prior to the amendment brought in by Tamil Nadu State Act to the Registration Act by in serving Section 22-A and only a meagre extent of 4260 square feet of land alone was left unsold.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the road has been formed recently and gift was made in favour of Commissioner, Palacode Panchayat Union under Registered Doc.No.2506/2022. Therefore, the clarification upon which reliance was placed by the respondent cannot be applied to the facts of the petitioner's case. According to the learned counse