Allowed

P.Siva Kumar, v. the Sub Registrar

Madras HC22 Jun 2018WP(MD)/12539/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition filed by owners of unapproved layout plots against the Sub-Registrar who refused to register a partition deed. The Court set aside the refusal and directed registration upon endorsement of an undertaking not to sell before obtaining layout approval.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings refused on 30.04.2018 set aside; direction to receive document, endorse undertaking, and register the partition deed.

P.Siva Kumar, Vs the Sub Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12539 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.11407 of 2018

¶7

1.P.Siva Kumar 2.P.Suresh 3.S.Promodhini 4.S.Kanchana : Petitioners Vs.

¶8

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 30.04.2018 in Check Slip No.2/2018 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to receive and register the memorandum of partition deed dated 26.04.2018 executed among the petitioners within a time frame to be fixed by this Court by accepting payment of stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioners presented a deed of partition for registration to the respondent. The respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the property involves house site plots in an unapproved layout. As per Section 22-A(2) of the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendments) Act, 2008, the unapproved layout shall not be registered. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that it is only a simple partition deed and the petitioners have no intention to sell away the housing plots allotted to their share. In the event of sale, they undertake that they will take appropriate lay out approval with the authorities concerned in accordance with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ law and only thereafter, they will sell it and that they will not take advantage of the present registration of partition deed.

¶14

¶15

Recording the submission, the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 30.04.2018 is set aside and a direction is issued to the respondent to receive the document and after taking an endorsement of this undertaking in the deed of partition from the petitioners, consider the registration of the document.

¶16

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.69683. +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.69608.

¶24

Order made in W.P(MD)No.12539 of 2018 Dated: 22.06.2018

¶25

sml

¶26

RAM/SV/SAR 2/02.07.2018/2P/4C

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Siva Kumar, v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Siva Kumar, v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathi, Vs the District Collector

A.Ramakrishnan Vs the Shipping Master

Manickanathan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Mareeswari, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Alexander, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sebastian, Vs the Commissioner of Land