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. 1–2The 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. 1–2The petitioner’s position was that the land was conveyed without changing its use.
pp. 1–2The petitioner sought to have the refusal set aside and the deed registered.
p. 102Issues
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. 2ii.Whether registration could be directed subject to undertakings preventing unauthorised change of use or development.
pp. 2–403Law 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. 2Applying 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. 2The 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. 3–4Provisions 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. 1–2Following 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. 2–4The 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. 405Holding
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned refusal order set aside.
p. 4The 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. 4On 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. 4The 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. 4No costs were awarded.
p. 4Original Court PDF
S.MallikavsTHe District Registrar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
