Registration of a conveyance deed cannot be refused on the basis of potential future land use violations if the parties provide a binding affidavit/undertaking affirming they will not alter the land's use without requisite planning permission.

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.1797 of 2026 M.Pallavi ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Orathanadu, Pattukottai Registration District, Thanjavur Revenue 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 impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his proceedings in Impugned Refusal Slip in RFL/Orathanadu/3/2026 dated 08.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to register the Sale Deed presented by the Petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondent : Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate 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 alon