BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 07/01/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Najmunisha ... Petitioner Vs

1. The District Registrar,, Department of Registration, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli..

2. The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar.

Manapparai - 621 306, Tiruchirappalli District.. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent with respect to the refusal of Registration of the petitioners sale deed with refusal check slip bearing No.RFL/Manapparai/299/2025 dated 24.12.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to register the petitioners sale deed document in favour of Mr.Alagarsamy on the presentation to the 2nd respondent with respect to 11 cents of punja land in survey No. 498/1A2B1 of Puthanatham Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Lourdu Raj For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal of registration of sale deed by the 2^nd respondent dated 24.12.2025 No.RFL/Manapparai/299/2025 and for a consequential direction to the 2^nd respondent to register the petitioner's sale deed in favour of Alagarsamy on the presentation to the 2^nd respondent with respect to 11 cents of punja land in survey No.498/1A2B1 of Puthanatham Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the official respondents. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner purchased 23 cents of punja land under registered sale deed dated 28.05.2020 from one Akbar Ali. Subsequently, the same was partitioned among the petitioner and one Ajmeer Khaja.

Accordingly, the petitioner obtained 11 cents of land through partition. When the petitioner intends to sell the said land to one Alagarsamy, he presented the sale deed for registration. However, the 2^nd respondent refused to register the same stating that as per the orders of this Court dated 16.12.2024 in WP(MD) No.26741/2024, since the parent document was registered in violation of Section 22A of the Registration Act, the said sale deed could not be registered. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the land was obtained by way of partition and it is the only land available with the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the land in question is not a plot and it is an agricultural land and in and around the four boundaries, agricultural lands are situated and hence, the 2^nd respondent cannot come to the conclusion that this is a plot and citing the said reason, the 2^nd respondent cannot refuse to register the sale deed. Hence, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned refusal is liable to be quashed and prays for appropriate directions.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that in the present case, it is a plot and below 20 cents. By referring to a circular issued by the Inspector of Registration, he would submit that when the area of the land is below 20 cents, approval ought to have been obtained and since there is a bar contained under Section 22(A)(2), the 2^nd respondent has rightly refused the said sale deed and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

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

7. In the present case, it appears that the 2^nd respondent refused to register the sale deed citing the reason that when the total area of the land was registered without obtaining any approval, a statutory bar under Section 22A(2) of the Act applies to the present case. Out of the total extent of 23 cents