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) 46232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Sahulhammed – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
Writ Petition (MD) No. 6952 of 2026 | W.M.P.(MD)No.6952 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Dilip Kumar
For the Respondents: A. Baskaran

An instrument of conveyance cannot be refused registration solely on grounds of potential future land use change, provided the parties execute and furnish a formal affidavit undertaking not to alter the land structure or seek utility connections without requisite planning authority approval.

Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a refusal check slip issued by the Sub-Registrar under S. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, regarding the registration of a Partition Deed. The authorities refused registration on the ground that the property was treated as residential without requisite planning approval. The court examined the balance between property rights under Art. 300-A and development control regulations. The primary issue was whether the registration of a document can be denied based on the potential future usage of the land. Relying on established precedent, the court held that where no change of user is intended at the time of execution, the document must be registered, provided the parties file a formal undertaking via affidavit restraining themselves from unauthorized development or utility connections. The writ petition is allowed, directing the registration of the document subject to the filing of notarized affidavits of undertaking in four sets to be served upon the court, the registrar, the local body, and the electricity authority.

Table of Content
1. challenge to registration refusal based on development control norms. (Para 1)
2. requirement of an affidavit undertaking to balance property rights and regulatory compliance. (Para 2 , 3)

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional 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 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.

(ix) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is 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