Partly allowed

V.B.R.Menon,B.E(Mech),,Mba(Iima),Llb, v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC12 Dec 2022WP/29313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a refusal check slip preventing registration of sale deeds for approved layout plots. Court set aside the refusal order, directing the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the matter in light of approvals granted by DTCP and Village Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

The refusal check slip dated 10.10.2022 is set aside and the matter remitted to the Sub-Registrar to register the documents within six weeks considering prior approvals.

V.B.R.Menon,B.E(Mech),,Mba(Iima),Llb, Vs The Sub… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

Writ Petition No.29313 of 2022

V.B.R.Menon

…. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Sub-Registrar Nemili Sub-Registrar Office No.13, River Bank Street Nemili, Arakkonam- 631 051.

¶11

2.The Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th Floor C&E Market Road, Koyambedu Chennai 600 107.

¶12

3.The President Chitteri Village Panchayat Chitteri Village, Arakkonam Taluk Arakkonam – 631 003.

¶13

…. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/ NEMILI/ 53/ 2022 dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to fix the guideline value and allow registration of Sale deeds by the petitioner of the residential plots situated in the DTCP Approved Residential Layout No.M.V./N.U.EE.No.40 of 2013 dated 11.07.2013, situated in S.Nos.422 and 423

¶15

1 / 8

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶18

of Chitteri Village, Arakkonam Taluk. (Prayer amended vide order dated 30.11.2022 made in WMP No.29930/2022 in W.P.No.29313/2022 by MDIJ)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.B.R.Menon Party-in-Person For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthilselvi Government Advocate – for RR 1 and 2 Ms.P.Aishwarya – for R3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/ NEMILI/ 53/ 2022 dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to fix the guideline value and allow registration of Sale deeds by the petitioner of the residential plots situated in the DTCP Approved Residential Layout No.M.V./N.U.EE.No.40 of 2013 dated 11.07.2013, situated in S.Nos.422 and 423 of Chitteri Village, Arakkonam Taluk.

¶22

In respect of the property at S.Nos.422 and 423, Chitteri Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District to the extent of 7.72 acres, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property and he wants to develop the property as a layout. Therefore, he seems to have made an application to the 2^nd respondent, who, on considering the said plea raised by the petitioner has

¶23

2 / 8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶26

granted its approval vide proceedings dated 11.07.2013, whereby inter alia the following has been stated:

¶27

“ 2) kidg;gphptpw;F ,izg;gpy; cs;s kidg;gphpt[ epge;jidfspd;go xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gLfpwJ/ xg;g[jy; tH';fg;gl;l kidg;gphpt[ tiuglj;jpw;F k/t/C/,/vz;/40-2013 vd vz;zplg;gl;L 3 mry; tiugl';fs; nky;

¶28

eltof;iff;fhf ,j;Jld; mDg;gp itf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

¶29

Pursuant to the conditions imposed, which should be fulfilled by the

¶30

petitioner before getting formal approval from the 3^rd respondent, according to the petitioner, he after having complied with all the conditions imposed by the 2^nd respondent, approached the 3^rd respondent Panchayat Union, who also, after having verified the said compliance and after having received the necessary fee to be paid in this regard by the petitioner 01.10.2013, has issued the approval for the layout plan of the petitioner.

¶31

Those documents have been produced before this Court by the petitioner and relying upon the same, the petitioner, who appeared as party-inperson would contend that, since the DTCP has given technical approval, which is paramount, the approval was given by the local Village Panchayat, hencethere could be no further authority to give any further approval for the lay out.

¶32

3 / 8

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶35

Therefore, the present reason stated through the impugned order when the documents were presented before the 1^st respondent for registration that the document cannot be registered as the layout is an unapproved one and on citing the said reason on 10.10.2022, a refusal check slip since has been issued by the 1^st respondent, the said proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent is unlawful and unjustifiable. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court.

¶36

Heard Ms.N.Senthilselvi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.P.Aishwarya learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

Learned Government Advocate, on instructions would submit that, if the 2^nd respondent and 3^rd respondent have already approved the layout of the petitioner, there could be no further approval expected from any other authority. Therefore, the reason stated by the 1^st respondent for refusal of the registration of the document presented for such registration by the petitioner may not be justifiable at any rate.

¶38

I have heard Mr.V.B.R Menon, the petitioner who appeared as party-inperson and the learned government counsel for the respondents.

¶39

4 / 8

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶42

On 11.07.2013, the Directorate of Town and Country Planning or on

¶43

their behalf, approval has been given and it has been communicated to the petitioner as well as the local body ie., the 3^rd respondent. On receipt of the same, after verifying the compliance made by the petitioner and after receipt of the necessary fee, R3 has approved the layout plan and the signature of the Village Panchayat President also with rubber stamp has been made, which was in fact pursuant to the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat dated 02.05.2013, where the following resolution has been passed:

¶44

“ntY}h; khtl;lk; muf;nfhzk; tl;lk; bekpyp Cuhl;rp xd;wpa vy;iyf;F cl;gl;l rpj;njup fpuhk g”;rhaj;jpw;F cl;gl;l g[“;ir r/vz;/7 Vf;fh; 73 brz;l; epyk;

¶45

jpU/ghyfpU&;znkdd; mth;fspd; Fkhuh; jpU/V.B.R.nkdd; mth;fSf;F brhe;jkhd epykhFk;/ nkw;go epyg;gug;gpy; tPl;L kidfshf gpupf;f Kot[ bra;J D.T.C.P. m';fPfhuk; bgw;W kidfs; mikf;f cs;sjhy; D.T.C.P apy; tH';fpa bjhHpy;El;g m';fPfhu tiuglj;jpy; cs;sthW rhiyfs; kw;Wk; g{';fhit ,t;t{uhl;rp kd;wj;jpw;F jhdg;gj;jpuk; K:yk; jhdkhf tH';fpajhy; ,t;tPl;L kidg; gphptpw;F m';fPfhuk; tH';fpa[k; nkw;go rhiyfs; kw;Wk; g{';fhit ,t;t{uhl;rp kd;wk; guhkhpg;gJ vd;Wk; ,t;t{uhl;rp kd;wk; jPu;khdk; ,aw;wg;gLfpwJ/”

¶46

5 / 8

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶49

Therefore, these documents would go to show that the respondents 2 and 3 have given approval to the layout of the petitioner. When that being so, the reasons stated by the 1^st respondent for refusing to register the documents presented by the petitioner stating that it is an unapproved or unregularized plot may not be justifiable and therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the said reason cannot stand in the legal scrutiny and accordingly it is liable to be interfered with.

¶50

In that view of the matter, this court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order:

¶51

That the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 is set aside

¶52

and the matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration.

¶53

● While reconsidering the same the approval given by respondents 2 and 3 as discussed herein above shall be taken into account by the 1^st respondent and accordingly the needful shall be undertaken by the 1^st respondent to register the documents in question if the same are

¶54

6 / 8

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶57

otherwise in order, within a period of six weeks from the

¶58

date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶59

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶60

12.12.2022

¶61

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST To

¶62

1.The Sub-Registrar, Nemili Sub-Registrar Office No.13, River Bank Street Nemili, Arakkonam- 631 051.

¶63

2.The Director, Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th Floor, C&E Market Road, Koyambedu Chennai 600 107.

¶64

3.The President Chitteri Village Panchayat Chitteri Village, Arakkonam Taluk Arakkonam – 631 003.

¶65

7 / 8

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.No.29313 of 2022

¶68

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶69

KST

¶70

W.P.No. 29313 of 2022

¶71

12.12.2022

¶72

8 / 8

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.B.R.Menon,B.E(Mech),,Mba(Iima),Llb, v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.B.R.Menon,B.E(Mech),,Mba(Iima),Llb, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Prabha Kumari Vs Tmt. Kakarla Usha, IAS

Nari Akbar Basha Vs Faritha Banu

Sushil Kapoor Vs Inspector General of Registration

K.Jayaraman Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Daisy Vs Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Radha Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer