BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Krishnaveni ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Trichirappalli District.

2.The Sub-Registrar Manapparai, Manapparai Sub-Registrar Office, Manapparai, Trichirappalli District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the second respondent's impugned order in Refusal Number RFL / Manaparai / 288 / 2025 dated 19.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the second respondent to register the deed executed by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manikandan For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order in Refusal Number RFL / Manaparai / 288 / 2025 dated 19.12.2025 passed by the second respondent and consequently directing the second respondent to register the deed executed by the petitioner.

2. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

3. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner and her relatives jointly purchased the subject property from one Velusamy and his legal heirs vide Document No.1 of 2025 dated 23.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner and her relatives decided to partition the said property and accordingly, presented a partition deed before the second respondent for registration on 18.12.2025. However, the second respondent refused to register the document citing that the registration is barred under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and that layout approval is required. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since one of the co-sharers would be allotted only an extent of five cents, it indicates an intention to purchase a larger extent and thereafter subdivide the same, thereby attracting the bar under Section 22A(2) of the Act. Hence, the second respondent refused to register the partition deed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. On a perusal of the impugned refusal check slip, it is evident that the partition deed was refused solely on the ground that it is barred under Section 22A(2) of the Act. At this juncture, it would appropriate to extract Section 22A of the Act and the same reads as follows:

“22-A. Refusal to register certain documents .

.......

(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. A plain reading of Section 22A(2) of the Act makes it clear that the bar applies only in cases where unapproved layouts are formed and plots are sold as house sites. In the present case, the subject property was purchased as agricultural land, and the partition sought is only among co- owners. There is no material to show that the land has been converted into house sites or that an unapproved layout has been formed. Therefore, Section 22A(2) of the Act has no application to the facts of the present case.

9. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no impediment for the second respondent to register the partition deed presented by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned refusal check slip dated

19.12.2025 is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the second respondent in Refusal No. RFL/Manaparai/288/2025 d