Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59883
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, K.RAJASEKAR, JJ
L.Saranya – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 009. – Respondent
W.A(MD) No.1156 of 2025 | W.P.(MD)No.203 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Aravinthan
For the Respondents: Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Mr.G.Suriya Ananth
The court upheld that unapproved plots require regularization before registration, emphasizing the legislative mandate against such registrations.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 2 of 2009) - Refusal to register instrument of unapproved plot due to legislative mandate - Court upheld the refusal to register based on the statutory requirement for regularization of plots. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Land Law - Policy decision by government to deny registration of unapproved plots - Clarity on unapproved layout and implications related to essential services. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the refusal of registration for 4 ½ cents of land purchased through a sale deed dated 17.12.2024, asserting it was eligible for registration despite legislative barriers.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the plot must be regularized per Tamil Nadu's regulations due to its unapproved status; therefore, registration was rightly denied.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the applicability of Section 22-A concerning residential property and unapproved plots against statutory guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the clear mandate of legislation, leading to the conclusion that unapproved properties cannot be registered until formal regularization takes place, reflecting the government's policy against such transactions.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compliance with registration laws. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's decision aligns with statutory requirements on land registration. (Para 3) |
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2. The appellant purchased 4 ½ cents of land from her vendor vide sale deed dated 17.12.2024. It was presented for registration before SRO, Panagudi. The registering authority declined to register the document and issue the refusal check slip. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.203 of 2025. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 07.01.2025 in the following terms:-
“6. 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 authority’ means,—
(i) any Municipal Corporation constituted under any law for the time being in force; or (ii) a Municipal Council constituted under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 ; or (iii) a Panchayat Union Council or a Village Panchayat constituted under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 ; or (iv) any other Municipal Corporation, that may be constituted under any law for the time being in force. Explanation II.—For the purpose of this section ‘planning authority’ means the authority constituted under section 11 of, and includes the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority established under section 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971;
(3) instrument relating to cancellation of sale deeds without the consent of the person claiming under the said sale deed.”
7.Though the proviso to Section 22-A (2) of the Act says 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, the proviso to Section 22-A (2) is not applicable to the case on hand. That apart, the Regularization of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were made by G.O.(Ms)No.78, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department, dated 04.05.2017. The Rule 3 of says about cut off date for considering the regularization of unapproved plots and layouts. It is relevant to extract Rule 3 hereunder:-
“3.Cut-off date for considering regularisation of unapproved plots and layouts.– Only those unapproved layouts where a
