IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Writ Appeal No.1540 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.11793 of 2025

1. The District Registrar O/o. the District Registrar Thiruvarur District.

2. The Sub-Registrar Mannargudi Thiruvarur District. ... Appellants Vs.

1. A.Vijayarajavarman

2. A.Siddhardh ... Respondents Prayer :

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 30.07.2024 made in W.P.No.21480 of 2024.

For Appellants : Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.Asokan party-in-person

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM)

Under assail is writ order dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.21480 of

2024.

2. The respondents preferred writ proceedings challenging the refusal check slip dated 28.08.2023 issued by the second appellant - Sub Registrar, Mannargudi. The respondents presented the settlement dated 23.08.2023 for registration. On scrutiny, the Sub-Registrar found that the said property has been divided as house sites even as per document. Therefore, approval from the competent authority is required as contemplated under Section 22-A of "the Registration Act, 1908" ["Act"] read with Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms.)No.78 Housing and Urban Development [UD4(3)] Department dated 04.05.2017 wherein the Government framed the Rules namely, "The Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017" ["Rules"]. Secondly, the objection raised by the Registering Authority is there was insertion of lay out copy which is found to be not genuine.

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of appellants would mainly contend that initially a settlement deed was executed on 27.08.2015 by the grandfather in favour of the respondents /

writ petitioners.

4. A perusal of the schedule to the said settlement deed of the year

2015 would show that the entire extent of 5.01 acres has been settled in favour of the respondents / writ petitioners. The entire extent was registered in two parts, the first part is 170476 sq.ft and the second part is 47960 sq.ft. Pertinently, no layout was enclosed in the said document. Subsequently, the subject document dated 23.08.2023 has been presented for registration by inserting a layout, which according to the Sub-Registrar is not genuine. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that approval of layout is mandatory in view of Section 22-A of the Act read with provisions of Rules issued in G.O.No.78. In the absence of any such approval from the competent authority, housing plots cannot be registered and as per the schedule in the document presented, layout has been formed. Therefore, the writ Court has committed an error in relying on the judgment in the case of D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in W.P.No.426 of 2022 while allowing the writ proceedings.

6. Mr.Asokan, party-in-person, father of the respondents represented the case. He would oppose the contention of learned Special Government Pleader by stating that even in the year 2015, the property remained as house sites. Therefore, it is unnecessary for them to obtain layout approval in compliance with Section 22-A of the Act. That apart, there is no provision or Government Order in force, which would mandate them to secure the house site approval. Thus, the writ order is in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the present writ appeal is to be rejected. That apart, the application of principle laid down in the case of D.Rajamanickam cited supra has been rightly followed by the writ court.

7. Heard the parties to the lis on hand.

8. Section 22-A(2) of the Act reads as under:

"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 pro