BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 06/02/2026 CORAM The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Nalluchamy S ... Petitioner Vs The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.. ... Respondent 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 refusal order passed by the respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Kariyapatti/112/2025 dated 28.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondent to register the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 26.11.2025 presented by the petitioner without insisting the DTCP approval or approval from the local body authorities within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Babu For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 26.11.2025 issued by the respondent and to direct the respondent to register the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 26.11.2025 presented by the petitioner without insisting the DTCP approval or approval from the local body authorities within the time stipulated by this Court.

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

3. When the petitioner presented the deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the respondent on the ground that without approval from the DTCP and the local authorities, the document could not be registered. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's vendor initially owned 44 cents. He has subsequently sold 21 cents of land on 15.03.2023 and now by virtue of the present sale deed, the petitioner intends to purchase from his vendor about 10 cents of land through the impugned sale deed dated 26.11.2025. Citing the reason that this is a plot, the bar under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act 1908 will apply to the said plot, the respondent refused to register the same. However he would submit that even assuming, it is an agricultural land, even in such cases, only in the event more than 8 plots, restriction under Section 22A will apply as per the circular dated 16.03.2020. However, in the present case, it is only 10 cents of land and hence, the bar under Section 22A will not come into play. Therefore, he prays for interference.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner intends to purchase 10 cents out of 23 cents and the vendor also sold 21 cents of land already and therefore, bar under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act will squarely applicable to the present case.

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

7. It appears that in the present case, as rightly contended by the either side S.No.3 of the clarification letter dated 16.03.2020 says that in the event if the larger extent of property is sold, ie., within 8 plots Section 22A of the Registration Act will not apply. For better appreciation, S.No.3 of the said clarification letter dated 16.03.2020 is extracted as under:

8. In the present case, even assuming the petitioner's vendor has sold three plots, Section 22A will not come into picture as it is within the said eight plots. Hence, there is no impediment for the respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner is directed to represent the sale deed dated 26.11.2025 and upon such representation, the respondent shall register the same forthwith, if the same is otherwise in order.

9. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

06.02.202