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) 46197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
I. Madhan – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.11264 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD)No.8700 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. John Abraham Raja
For the Respondents: F. Deepak

Registration of property deeds cannot be refused solely on land classification grounds if the executant executes a notarized affidavit undertaking not to change the nature of the land or seek development permissions without planning authority approval.

Headnote:The petitioners challenged the refusal of registration of a Partition Deed under S.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, due to lack of planning authority approval for the site's classification. The Court weighed the constitutional right to property under Art.300-A against development control legislation. It determined that if parties express no intention to convert land use, registration must proceed subject to an undertaking. The core issue addressed was whether a registrar can refuse registration based on potential future land use when current use remains unchanged. The ratio decidendi established that registration should not be denied if the parties provide a notarized affidavit undertaking not to alter the land use or seek development utilities without required planning permissions. The writ petition is allowed, directing the set aside of the impugned order and providing for registration upon the filing of the mandated undertaking.

Table of Content
1. registration of deeds involving land classification is permissible upon filing undertakings against unauthorized development. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 28.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.11264 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.8700 of 2026

1.I.Madhan

2.Anandhi 3.Suyambu

4.Saraswathi ... Petitioners The Sub Registrar, Radhapuram Sub Registration Office, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli 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 Refusal Slip in Refusal No.RFL/Radhapuram/24/2026 dated 24.03.2026 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the Respondent to register the Partition Deed dated 05.12.2025 presented by the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.John Abraham Raja For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader 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, dated 17.04.2026]. 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

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