01Facts
The petitioner challenged the Sub-Registrar’s check slip dated 22 September 2026, refusing registration of a sale deed concerning 0.00.62 hectares in Survey No. 2229/2D, Aandankovil East Village.
p. 2Registration was refused under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the property was conveyed as a residential plot or for residential use without planning-authority approval. The petitioner contended that the land was conveyed without changing its use.
p. 202Issues
i.Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration under Section 22-A because the land was conveyed for residential use without planning-authority approval, where the transaction did not itself change the land’s use.
p. 2ii.Whether registration could be directed subject to the claimant undertaking not to change the use or develop the land without the requisite permission.
pp. 2–403Law Applied
Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, was considered alongside the property owner’s constitutional right under Article 300-A and the enforcement of development-control laws.
p. 2The Court applied Sankarakumar & another v. The Sub-Registrar, Panpozhi, W.P.(MD) No. 29522 of 2025, decided 17 April 2026, which held that a document may be registered where the parties intend to convey the land without changing its nature, subject to the claimant undertaking not to use or develop it for a changed purpose without planning-authority permission.
p. 2The undertaking also makes the claimant aware of potential contempt proceedings and that utility connections or services cannot be claimed without due conversion.
pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 1
Registration Act, 1908 Section 22A
04Reasoning
Applying Sankarakumar, the Court treated the proposed conveyance as distinct from a change in the land’s use. It held that registration could proceed subject to safeguards preserving the planning authority’s control over any future conversion or development.
pp. 2–4The claimant in whose favour title would vest must provide a notarised undertaking in four sets, including an undertaking not to use or develop the property for residential, commercial, or other changed purposes without permission. The Court also imposed directions concerning filing, representation, the land description in the document, and transmission and uploading of the affidavits.
pp. 2–405Holding
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned check slip set aside.
pp. 4–5The claimant must execute and file a notarised affidavit in four sets and file one set before the Court within four weeks of receiving the web copy; a certified copy of the order is to issue only after that filing.
pp. 4–5The petitioner may then represent the document with the certified order and three affidavit sets, and the Sub-Registrar must register it if there is no other impediment.
pp. 4–5The land must be described in the document as “Nanjai” or “Punjai,” rather than “Manai”; the affidavit must be scanned and uploaded with the registered document, form part of it, and the other sets must be sent to the local authority and the jurisdictional TANGEDCO Assistant Engineer. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
Dinesh,vsThe District Registrar,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
