BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.09.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.26578 of 2023 A.Selvakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Registrar, District Registration Office (South), No.171 Palace Road, Madurai 625 001 District.

2.The Sub – Registrar, O/o.The Sub - Registrar, Kallikudi, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Madurai Region, Madurai, Madurai District.

4.The Special Officer/Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Panchayat Union, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in Moo.Mu.No.8248/Aa1/2023, dated 05.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to accept and register the pending Document No.B6 2023 rejected in gjpt[ kWg;g[ thpir vz;. RFL/Kallikudi/4/2023 dated 12.06.2023, on the file of the 2nd respondent within time limit fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Santhakumaresan For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent in Moo.Mu.No.8248/Aa1/2023, dated 05.09.2023 and consequently to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to accept and register the pending Document No.B6 2023.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent had granted approval for the layout with regard to the subject property under the Regularizing the Unapproved House Sites Scheme, 2017. Based on the same, when the petitioner presented a sale deed in respect of the subject property, the same has been refused to be registered stating that the site should not come under the category of unapproved house site and it has to be treated as a new layout. Challenge has also been made to the said order of rejection by way of appeal. The said appeal was also rejected by the first respondent.

4.The petitioner had framed a layout and sought regularization. By proceedings, dated Na.Ka.No.3919/2018, the Joint Commissioner of Planning on 19.09.2018 had granted approval for regularization. Thereafter, the said regularization has been ordered by the Block Development Officer by an order dated 01.03.2023 in Na.Ka.No.0504/2023/Thi5 with various conditions. Now the impugned order has been passed on the ground that no sites have been sold prior to 20.10.2016 and all the previous documents have been registered only on the land value and not the site value. Therefore, it should be treated as a new layout and hence, necessary permission ought to have been obtained by the petitioner from the Panchayat President.

5.The very fact that the DTCP approval has been granted on 19.09.2018 for 157 plots is not disputed. This includes survey Nos.1> 2> 3fp> 3nk> 4-7> 7v> 9-16> 16v> 18-41> 45-52> 52gp> 54-63> 67-70> 70gp> 72-79> 79gp> 81-84> 87-108> 115-130> 130v> 130gp> 131-156> 159-170. The proceedings itself clearly shows that 16 plots have already been sold. Now the impugned proceedings has been passed as if the documents registered earlier have not been registered on the basis of the site value.

Therefore, it cannot be treated as a layout.

6.This Court is of the view that once the planning authorities had already considered issue and granted permission to regularize the layout framed earlier, merely because, the property has been sold on the land value and not the site value, the registration cannot be refused. It is not for the Sub-Registrar to decide the issue. What is barred under Section 22-A of the Registration Act is the registration of unapproved plots. When the plots have already been approved by the concerned authorities, it is not for the Sub Registrar to interpret the orders of the authorities and to take