Madras HC Upholds Refusal to Register Sale Deed for Unapproved Layout Formed on Agricultural Land

The appellant presented a sale deed for registration concerning plots formed from agricultural land.

The Sub Registrar refused registration by check slip dated 27.11.2025, citing the absence of approval from the competent planning authority for the layout under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

The appellant challenged the refusal in a writ petition.

The Writ Court upheld the stated reason for refusal but granted liberty to obtain the required approval.

The appellant then appealed.

Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act requires the registering officer to refuse registration of an instrument transferring ownership of land converted into house sites without permission from the relevant planning authority; the proviso permits registration where the same house site was previously registered as a house site.

Under Sections 71 and 72, a refusal is to be recorded by the registering officer, and the resulting order is appealable; Section 77 provides for a civil suit following refusal by the Registrar under Section 72 or 76.

Relying on The Inspector General of Registration v. M. Arunvel Kumar (2026 MHC 4296) and The Sub Registrar v. A. Nithyanandam (2026 MHC 4280), the Court held that the statutory process ordinarily requires a party to pursue the remedies under the Act, with disputed civil rights ultimately addressed by the competent civil court.

The Sub Registrar found that the land had been agricultural land and that an unapproved layout had been formed; in the absence of planning authority approval, Section 22-A(2) supported refusal of registration.

The Court also treated the check slip as a preliminary decision within the statutory refusal process.

The appellant could submit objections, obtain a speaking order under Section 71, appeal under Section 72, and, if necessary, pursue a civil suit under Section 77.

Because the statutory remedies were available and the dispute could involve factual and civil-rights adjudication, the Court held that the writ petition challenging the preliminary refusal was not entertainable.

Finding no infirmity in the Writ Court’s decision, it dismissed the writ appeal, without costs, while granting liberty to the appellant to pursue remedies in accordance with law.