High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 10.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.(MD).No.4842 of 2025K.Pappathy .. PetitionerVs.1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Madurai District.2.The Sub-Registrar, Chettikulam (Madurai North) Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai District. .. RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Refusal Number.RFL/ Chettikulam (Madurai North)/ 229/2024, dated 24.12.2024 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to entertain the Sale Deed, dated 24.12.2024 presented by the petitioner for registration in TP/ 205076380/2024 and register the same in the light of the order made by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in D.Rajamanickam Vs The Sub Registrar in W.P.No.426 of 2022, dated 01.07.2024 forthwith.Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.M.ShakulhameedFor Respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government PleaderORDERThe petitioner had decided to purchase the property situated in Survey No.22/3, Patta No.24, Plot No.7 at Kodimangalam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Chettikulam, Madurai District from one S.Chandrasekar and his legal heirs. He presented the document for registration on 24.12.2024. The 2nd respondent refused to receive the document on the ground that the property had been unauthorizedly converted into plots in contravention of Section 22 A(2) of the Registration Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.2. Heard Mr.M.Shakulhameed, for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.3.Mr.M.Shakulhameed, for the petitioner contends that much earlier to the present document, the very same Sub Registrar had received several documents, which had converted the agricultural plot into housing plots. They are in Document Nos.845/2011, 844/2011, 842/2011, 2867/1998, 2866/1998, 2863/1998, 846/2011, 2864/1998, 2865/1998 and 843/2011. He relies upon the Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 2025proviso to Section 22 A(2) to plead that where a property has already been dealt with as a housing plot, the bar under Section 22 A(2) does not apply. 4. Per contra, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, states that the Sub Registrar is duty bound to verify if the property has been sold as housing plot and if sold as housing plot, whether it has 'in-principle' approval from DTCP and plot approval from the appropriate local planning authority. He states in case it is not so done, then the Sub-Registrar is duty bound to issue refusal check slip in terms of Section 22 A. He further points out that in case the Sub-Registrar contravenes the said provision, she or he is liable to be prosecuted under Section 81 A of the Registration Act. Therefore, he pleads the impugned order does not deserve any interference.5. At this stage, Mr.Shakulhameed, for the petitioner draws my attention to the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioner to the effect that she will use the lands only for agricultural purposes and that she will not put up any superstructure over the same.6. I have carefully considered the submissions on both sides.Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 20257. If an agricultural plot is converted into a housing site, then the second respondent is statutorily bound under Section 22 A(2) of the Registration Act to reject the same. However, if an agricultural land is sold as an agricultural land, Section 22 A(2) is not attracted. Apart from that, even if an agricultural plot has already been converted as a housing plot and has been sold and registered, the bar under Section 22 A(2) will not operate on a new document being presented for the very same property. In the facts of the present case, as pointed out by Mr. Shakulhameed, the very same plot had earlier been dealt with as a housing plot in Document Nos.845/2011, 844/2011, 842/2011, 2867/1998, 2866/1998, 2863/1998, 846/2011, 2864/1998, 2865/1998 and 843/2011. Hence, the proviso would come to her rescue.8. In addition, he has filed an undertaking affidavit of the petitioner and the petitioner's vendor, which are extracted as hereunder:(i) Affidavit filed by the petitioner:“5. I hereby undertake that I would not and never construct any building or house in the land which I am proposed to purchase from its lawful owner. I further undertake that I would only carry on my agricultural operations and eak out my livelihood by raising various timely and seasonal crops and I purchase the property for only poultry farming and small garden for cattle.Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 20256. I further undertake that if at all in the future, if I venture to construct any building in the said property, I undertake that such a building would be constructed only after getting all necessary plan approvals and other permissions from the concerned Governmental authorities.” (ii) Affidavit filed by the petitioner's vendor:“5. I hereby undertake that the petitioner would not and never construct any building or house in the land which is proposed to purchase from me. I further undertake that the petitioner would only carry on his agricultural operations and eak out her livelihood by raising various timely and seasonal crops and she purchase the property for only poultry farming and small garden for cattle.6. I further undertake that if at all in the future, if either myself or the petitioner venture to construct any building in the said property, I undertake that such a building would be constructed only after getting all necessary plan approvals and other permissions from the concerned Government authorities.”9. Since the petitioner, in addition, undertakes to maintain the plot, as it is and also states she will move the appropriate authority and secure permission and only thereafter, put up a construction, the impugned order, dated 24.12.2024 is quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to receive the document presented on 24.12.2024 and register the same.Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 202510. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is ordered. No costs. 10.03.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / NogbgPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 2025V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.gbg To1.The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Madurai District.2.The Sub-Registrar, Chettikulam (Madurai North) Sub-Registrar Office, Madurai District. W.P.(MD).No.4842 of 202510.03.2025Page 7 of 7