Registration of unapproved plots is permitted without conversion if the owner executes undertaking affidavits affirming no change of use.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal check slip dated 07.05.2026 issued by the respondent whereby the registration of a sale deed dated 07.05.2026 was refused on the ground that the subject land is an unapproved plot comprised in Survey No. 97/10A1, measuring an extent of 2.93 Ares (7.25 cents), situated at Kottaram Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The subject property was originally owned by one Glory Sheila Kumar, from whom the petitioner’s vendor had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 19.01.2024 vide Document No.286/2024. After purchase, the entire revenue records were mutated in the name of the petitioner’s vendor and he was also issued Patta No.5002. According to the petitioner, the subject property is an agricultural vacant site. The petitioner, in turn, purchased the said property and the petitioner’s vendor executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner dated 07.05.2026, which was presented for registration before the respondent. However, it was refused for registration and a refusal check slip was issued on the ground that no proper approval had been obtained from the competent authority in respect of the subject property.

4. Similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court and as such, the reason for refusal of registration is no longer res integra. This Court, in W.P.(MD) No. 3111 of 2026, dated 28.04.2026, held as follows:

“2. In such cases, the matter is no longer res-integra and is governed by the Judgement of this Court in Sankarakumar & another -Vs- The Sub-Registrar, Panpozhi (W.P.(MD) No.29522 of 2025). This Court considered the purport of Section 22-A(2), the need to balance the Constitutional Right of the owners of the property under Article 300-A with the enforcement of development control legislation and the rules framed thereunder. It held that, irrespective of the location of the land, if the executant and the claimant of the document express an intention to use the property as such, without converting its nature, then, irrespective of the size of the land, boundary, abutting a pathway/road, etc., the document shall be registered, on condition that affidavits in four sets be executed and filed before this Court, the Sub- Registrar, the local body and the TANGEDCO. It is made clear that the party breaching the undertaking will also be liable for contempt of this Court, in addition to other actions.

3. The affidavit containing the following undertaking shall be executed by the claimant in whose favour the title vests under the document:

"I undertake not to use the property as a residential/commercial site or such other change of user, unless due permission is obtained from the planning authority. Without due approval, I will not develop the site by changing its use, and will not put up any residential or commercial building. I am aware that I may be liable to punishment for contempt of Court for violating this undertaking. I am also aware that I will not be entitled to claim electricity connection or water, sewerage, and other connections or services from the local authority or any other authority unless due conversion is made as per the permission of the planning authority."

4. This writ petition is allowed on the following terms:

(i) The impugned order shall stand set aside.

(ii) The claimant under the document refused for registration, in whose name the property vests, shall execute a duly notarised affidavit in four sets and file one set before this Court within a p