01Facts
The petitioner presented a sale deed dated 22 September 2026 for land measuring 0.01.86 hectares in Survey No. 2229/2B, Aandankovil East Village, Karur District.
pp. 1–2The Sub-Registrar refused registration 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.
pp. 1–2The petitioner contended that the land was conveyed without changing its use and sought to quash the refusal and compel registration.
pp. 1–202Issues
i.Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration under Section 22-A on the stated ground where the petitioner contended that the land was conveyed without changing its use.
pp. 1–2ii.Whether registration could be directed subject to an undertaking against unauthorised change of use and development.
pp. 2–403Law Applied
Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, was considered in light of the property owner’s right under Article 300-A of the Constitution and the enforcement of development-control laws.
p. 2Relying on Sankarakumar & another v. The Sub-Registrar, Panpozhi, W.P.(MD) No. 29522 of 2025, decided on 17 April 2026, the Court stated that where the parties intend to convey the property without converting its nature, the document is to be registered irrespective of the land’s location, size, boundaries, or access, subject to affidavits undertaking not to change the use or develop the property without planning permission.
pp. 2–3Provisions in the judgment · 1
Registration Act, 1908 Section 22A
04Reasoning
The Court treated the issue as governed by Sankarakumar.
pp. 2–3It balanced the owner’s constitutional property right against development-control requirements by permitting registration while requiring the claimant to undertake not to use or develop the land for residential, commercial, or other changed purposes without the requisite planning permission.
pp. 2–3The undertaking also precludes claiming specified utility and service connections without due conversion and warns of possible contempt consequences for breach.
pp. 2–3The Court accordingly set aside the refusal but imposed procedural and documentary conditions on registration.
pp. 3–405Holding
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned refusal was set aside.
pp. 3–5The claimant in whose favour title vests must execute a duly 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 will issue only after that filing.
pp. 3–5The 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. 3–5The land must be described in the document as Nanjai or Punjai, rather than Manai; the affidavit must be scanned and uploaded and form part of the registered document.
pp. 3–5The remaining affidavit sets are to be sent to the local authority and the jurisdictional TANGEDCO Assistant Engineer.
pp. 3–5No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
pp. 3–5Original Court PDF
Dinesh,vsThe District Registrar,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
