BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06/01/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP(MD)No.105 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD) No.94 of 2026 K.Menaka ... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector-Cum-Head of the District Forest Committee, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

2.The Tahsildar, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District..

3.The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Boothapandi, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent in RFL/Boothapandi/45/2025 and quash the same and further directing the 3rd respondent to entertain the sale deed dated 19.06.2025 for registration and consequently to register and release the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2025 passed by the third respondent in RFL/Boothapandi/45/2025 and to direct the third respondent to entertain the sale deed dated 19.06.2025 for registration and consequently to register and release the same.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land measuring an extent of 2 Acres and 47 cents, comprised in New Survey Nos.432/2 and 433/2C, originally belonged to one Sirjudeen, who died intestate on 24.10.1994. Thereafter, his legal heirs sold the said property to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title, P.Ganesan, who in turn, sold the property to various persons. Out of the total extent of 2 acre 47 cents, the petitioner purchased an extent of 43 cents along with 60 rubber saplings. However, by citing the embargo provided under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 as well as the circular dated 21.06.2017, the third respondent refused to register the sale deed.

3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that initially the petitioner's predecessor-in-title sold the property to various persons and that one of the purchaser subdivided the same and sold it in the form of plots and the modus operandi was only to purchase the land in cents and thereafter, to subdivide the said property and sell it in the form of plots without forming any layout. Therefore, the registration was refused.

4.Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, it is evident that the petitioner intended to purchase the 43 cents of land along with 60 rubber saplings as agricultural land. Therefore, it is clear that the said land is an agricultural land. According to the respondents, in similar way, the other purchasers had also purchased portions of the land from the petitioner's vendor. However, they subsequently converted their respective portions into plots and sold the same in the year of 2019. When Section 22A (2) of the Registration Act, came into force, it was a lapse on the part of the respondents to have permitted the other purchasers to convert the said lands into plots and to register the same without approval.

5.In the present case, the petitioner intended to carry on the agricultural activities on the land purchased with 60 rubber saplings. At no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the petitioner purchased the land only for the purpose of converting it into plots. Even assuming that the petitioner intended to purchase the land for the purpose of converting it into plots, it is always in the hands of the respondents to ensure that without necessary approval, the petitioner is not permitted to sell the property after purchase. Such being the case, the said issue does not arise, since the petitioner has purchased 43 cents of land as agricultural land. Therefore, I do not find any impediment for the third respondent to register the sale deed.

6.In view of the above,