Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WA No. 3192 of 2024 The Sub Registrar Salem (West), 95/412, Mullai Nagar Near Saibaba Temple, Suramangalam Salem 636 005.
Appellant(s)
Vs D.Rajamanickam S/o Duraisami, 3/1, Sivanar Chetty Street, Gugai, Salem 636 006.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER To set aside the order dated 01.07.2024 made in W.P.No. 426 of 2022 and allow the above writ appeal.
For Appellant(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan Special Government Pleader For Respondent(s): Mrs.Radha Gopalan For Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.U.Baranidharan
For the Respondents: Mrs.Radha Gopalan, Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan
The courts must adhere to strict statutory language and requirements concerning registration, particularly under Section 22A of the Registration Act.
Headnote:This case concerns the interpretation of Section 22A of the Registration Act regarding the registration of house sites without prior approval from the planning authority. The appellant, the Sub Registrar, contends that the refusal to register a settlement deed on the grounds of lacking such approval is justified as the subject property had not been previously registered as a house site. The Writ Court's ruling that registration could proceed despite this absence was challenged. The court ultimately ruled against the interpretation by the Writ Court, affirming that the requirement for approval must be adhered to in the absence of prior registration as a house site.
Result: The writ order dated 01.07.2024 made in W.P.No. 426 of 2022 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the writ order dated 01.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.426 of 2022.
2. The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) is the appellant before this Court. The respondent filed writ proceedings challenging the refusal check slip dated 01.09.2021 issued by the appellant. Admittedly, the 1st respondent presented a settlement deed for registration in respect of the land measuring 3508 sq.ft, which is a house site. Further, it is not in dispute that the subject property is situated in a layout, wherein surrounding areas have already been registered as house sites. The Sub Registrar refused to register mainly on the ground that the appellant has not secured approval of house site from the competent authority, as mandated under Section 22A of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The learned Single Judge, since allowed the writ petition, the present intra-court appeal came to be instituted.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the interpretation of the Writ Court is running counter to the spirit of the amendment made under Section 22A of the Act. The purpose and object of Section 22A of the Act have been diluted. Thus, the Sub Registrar has preferred the present appeal. The proviso clause to Section 22A in unequivocal terms reiterates that the house sites without such permission may be registered, if it is shown that the same house sites have been previously registered as house sites. In the present case, the subject property in the settlement deed presented by the 1st respondent has not been registered as a house site previously. Therefore, plot approval is required for the purpose of registering the settlement deed presented by the 1st respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would oppose by stating that once the surrounding plots have been registered as house sites and an unapproved layout has already been formed, there is no necessity to get separate approval for one plot alone. The Writ Court also appreciated the said fact and formed an opinion that Section 22A would not stand in the way of registering the settlement deed, since the surrounding plots have already been registered as house sites.
5. This Court heard the arguments made on either side of the parties to the lis on hand.
6. The interpretation of the Writ Court on Section 22A (2) of the Act is that, if subsequent number of plots had already been registered in a layout as house sites then no plot approval is required for registration of remaining vacant plots. In other words, there is no bar for subsequent registration of unapproved plots, if the surrounding plots have already been registered as house sites. Based on the above interpretation, the writ petition came to be allowed.
7. Thus, it is necessary for this Court to examine, whether the interpretation of the Writ Court on Section 22A (2) of the Act is in consonance with the Rules of interpretation under law. Section 22A 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:-
.......
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.”
8. Under the above provision, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse registration of an instrument relating to transfer of ownership of lands converted as house sites without permission from the Planning Authority concerned. In the present case, no approval has been obtained from the Planning Authority in respect of the subject plot in the settlement deed presented for registration. Section 22A (2) proviso stipulates that house sites in the absence
