SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
T. Arul Jothi – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar, Pavoor Chatram – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.9830 and 9831 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I. Robert Chandra Kumar
For the Respondents: F. Deepak

Registration of a sale deed cannot be refused under S.22-A of the Registration Act merely on grounds of potential land-use change, provided the claimant files an undertaking affidavit promising to adhere to development control regulations and not change the property use without proper planning authority approval.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the refusal of the respondent to register a sale deed under S.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, due to lack of planning authority approval for residential use. The court observed that the property was not being converted and balanced the constitutional right under Art.300-A with development control legislation. Following precedent, the court held that registration is permissible if the claimant provides an affidavit undertaking not to alter the land use without proper approval. The issue was whether the Registrar could refuse registration based on the lack of conversion approval for an undeveloped plot. The court reasoned that in the absence of an actual change of user, the registration cannot be denied provided an undertaking is given to abide by development control norms. The ratio emphasizes protecting property rights while ensuring administrative compliance through notarized undertakings. The writ petition is allowed, the impugned refusal order is set aside, and the respondent is directed to register the document upon the petitioner submitting the required affidavit undertaking.

Table of Content
1. registration of sale deeds requires an undertaking affidavit when development approval is questioned. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORDER

This Writ Petition challenges the impugned refusal check slip. The document is refused registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the property is conveyed as a residential plot or for residential use without approval from the planning authority to convert the site into a residential one. In this case, the petitioner contends that the land is conveyed as such, without changing its use.

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 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this Order; Only upon filing of the same, a certified copy of this Order shall be issued to the petitioner.

(iii) Along with the certified copy of the Order of this Court, the petitioner will be entitled to represent the document along with three sets of affidavits.

(iv) Upon representation, the document shall be registered if there is no other impediment.

(v) Along with the document, the affidavit filed shall also be scanned and uploaded.

(vi) The two other sets shall be dispatched to the local authority and the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer of TANGEDCO concerned, who shall at all times consider the aforesaid undertaking and act accordingly.

(vii) If the petitioner fails to file an affidavit as directed within four weeks of receipt of the web copy of this Order, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.

(viii) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top