Madras High CourtProperty and Real Estate LawAdministrative and Public Law

Madras HC Quashes Land-Sale Refusal, Permits Registration If Claimant Pledges No Residential Or Commercial Use Without Planning Approval

S.Mallikav.THe District Registrar

Madras HC Quashes Land-Sale Refusal, Permits Registration If Claimant Pledges No Residential Or Commercial Use Without Planning Approval. S.Mallika vs THe District Registrar. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the land was conveyed for residential use without planning-authority approval, where the parties’ stated intention was not to change its use.

The court held

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned refusal order set aside.

It also directed

The claimant must execute and file a duly notarised affidavit in four sets within four weeks of receiving the web copy of the order; the certified copy will issue only after the affidavit is filed.

On representation of the deed with the certified order and three affidavit sets, the Sub-Registrar must register it if there is no other impediment.

The land must be described in the deed as Nanjai or Punjai, rather than Manai; the affidavit must be scanned and uploaded with the registered document, form part of that document, and the designated sets must be sent to the local authority and the jurisdictional TANGEDCO Assistant Engineer.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a refusal check slip issued by the second respondent, the Sub-Registrar, refusing registration of a sale deed dated 15 July 2026 concerning 5 Ares 42 Sq. Meters in Survey No. 359/17B, Valangapuri Village.

pp. 1–2

The stated ground was that the property was conveyed as a residential plot or for residential use without planning-authority approval to convert it to residential use.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner’s position was that the land was conveyed without changing its use.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought to have the refusal set aside and the deed registered.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the land was conveyed for residential use without planning-authority approval, where the parties’ stated intention was not to change its use.

p. 2

ii.Whether registration could be directed subject to undertakings preventing unauthorised change of use or development.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, alongside the property owner’s constitutional right under Article 300-A and the requirements of development-control legislation and rules.

p. 2

Applying Sankarakumar & another v. The Sub-Registrar, Panpozhi, W.P.(MD) No. 29522 of 2025, decided 17 April 2026, the Court stated that where the executant and claimant intend to convey the property without changing its nature, the document is to be registered irrespective of the land’s location, size, boundaries, or access, subject to specified undertakings against unauthorised change of use and development.

p. 2

The claimant must undertake not to use or develop the property as a residential or commercial site without planning permission, and acknowledge the potential consequences of breaching that undertaking.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Registration Act, 1908 Section 22A

04Reasoning

The refusal was based on the proposed residential use of the property without planning approval, while the petitioner maintained that the conveyance did not itself change the land’s use.

pp. 1–2

Following Sankarakumar, the Court treated registration and subsequent land use as distinct matters: registration could proceed while the claimant remained bound not to change the use or develop the land without the required permission.

pp. 2–4

The Court therefore set aside the refusal but made registration conditional on filing the prescribed notarised affidavits and complying with directions concerning the document’s recitals and the transmission of affidavits to the relevant authorities.

p. 4

05Holding

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned refusal order set aside.

p. 4

The claimant must execute and file a duly notarised affidavit in four sets within four weeks of receiving the web copy of the order; the certified copy will issue only after the affidavit is filed.

p. 4

On representation of the deed with the certified order and three affidavit sets, the Sub-Registrar must register it if there is no other impediment.

p. 4

The land must be described in the deed as Nanjai or Punjai, rather than Manai; the affidavit must be scanned and uploaded with the registered document, form part of that document, and the designated sets must be sent to the local authority and the jurisdictional TANGEDCO Assistant Engineer.

p. 4

No costs were awarded.

p. 4
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

S.MallikavsTHe District Registrar

Madras High Court · October 26, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment