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) 46198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Iyappan – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar, Eraniyal, Kanyakumari District – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.8724 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.Selvanayagam
For the Respondents: F.Deepak

Registration of a sale deed cannot be refused under S.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 solely on the ground of usage classification if the parties affirm no intent to convert the land use, provided they furnish an undertaking to seek necessary planning permission for any future development.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the refusal of a sale deed registration by the respondent under S.22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, premised on the lack of planning authority approval for residential conversion. The Court evaluated the balance between Constitutional property rights under Art.300-A and development control regulations. The core issue is the validity of refusing registration for land conveyed without change of usage intent. The Court held that registration cannot be denied if the parties express no intention to convert the land use, subject to specific undertakings to prevent unauthorized development, ensuring compliance with planning norms while upholding the right to alienate property. The Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order subject to the filing of specific notarized affidavits undertaking not to develop the site without official permission.

Table of Content
1. registration of documents cannot be refused based on land-use classification if the owner provides an undertaking to comply with development control rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 28.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD)No.8724 of 2026 Iyappan ... Petitioner The Sub Registrar, Eraniyal, Kanyakumari 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 on the file of the respondent in his proceedings in Refusal No. RFL/Eraniyal/106/2026 dated 03.03.2026 quashing the same and consequently, to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.03.2026 and release the same within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam 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 document, the affidavit filed shall also be scan

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