Allowed

K.Nagarajan v. the Joint Sub Registrar-I

Madras HC21 Apr 2022WP/4078/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of six writ petitions challenging refusal to register sale deeds due to lack of layout approval. Petitioners, who had Town Panchayat and DTCP approvals, sought to file the documents. The court set aside impugned orders, permitting submission with approvals within two weeks for mandatory registration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 29.01.2022 set aside; petitioners permitted to re-present sale deeds with DTCP approvals within two weeks for registration on payment of charges.

K.Nagarajan Vs the Joint Sub Registrar-I — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.Nos.4078, 4080, 4083, 4090, 4092 and 4096	4086, 4088, of 2022
K.Nagarajan	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4078 of 2022
K.Devaraj	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4080 of 2022
C.Raja	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4083 of 2022
J.Shayuthun	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4086 of 2022
U.Bharathkumar	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4088 of 2022
Suresh Raja	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4090 of 2022
T.Dinagaran	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4092 of 2022
G.Kalaivani	... Petitioner in W.P.No.4096 of 2022
.Vs.
The Joint Sub Registrar – I, Joint Sub Registrar – I Office, Tiruvannamalai.	... Respondent in all W.P's

¶6

COMMON PRAYER:-

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, on the file of the respondent in letter No.679/Aa.Pa.Pi/2022-3, 2022-1, 2022-2, 2022-4, 2022-5, 2022-6,

¶8

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

¶9

2022-7 & 2022-8 respectively dated 29.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to accept the sale deed, presented for registration by the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.S.Silambanan Additional Advocate General Assisted By Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶12

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶13

The issue involved in all these writ petitions are common in nature and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

¶14

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners intended to purchase the land located in Thenamudhu Nagar, Chinnakangeyanur Village, Tiruvannamalai District and after finalization of the price the sellers agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the sale deeds were presented before the respondent for registration, however the respondent returned the sale deeds mainly on the ground that as per Section 22 A of the Registration Act, from 20.10.2016 onwards unapproved layouts and house sites will not be accepted for registration. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed these petitions.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Town Panchayat granted approval for the layout and the same was subsequently ratified by the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Department, after collection of necessary regularisation charges, however, without considering all these aspects, the respondent refused to register the documents, which is un-sustainable one. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court may set aside the orders impugned in these writ petitions and permit the petitioners to represent the sale deeds along with DTCP approval and other necessary approvals granted by the competent Authorities and issue direction to the respondent to register the sale deeds upon payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges.

¶16

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent submitted that if the petitioners represent the sale deeds along with necessary approvals granted by the competent Authorities, the respondent would register the sale

¶17

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

¶18

deeds upon payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges.

¶19

In view of the above, the orders impugned in these writ petitions dated 29.01.2022 are set aside. The petitioners are permitted to represent the sale deeds along with DTCP approval and other necessary approvals granted by the competent Authorities, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the sale deeds are represented by the petitioners along with necessary approvals granted by the competent Authorities, the respondent shall register the sale deeds, if it is otherwise in order and upon payment of necessary stamp duty and registration charges.

¶20

The writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

pri

¶26

¶27

The Joint Sub Registrar – I, Joint Sub Registrar – I Office, Tiruvannamalai.

¶28

+8ccs to Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.27795

¶29

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.27993 & 27996

¶30

W.P.NOS.4078, 4080, 4083, 4086, 4088, 4090, 4092 AND 4096 OF 2022

¶31

AJS(CO) PBS/19/05/2022

¶32

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

K.Nagarajan v. the Joint Sub Registrar-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nagarajan v. the Joint Sub Registrar-I

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

Raja Vs The Inspector of Police

S. Abbas Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

S.Vasudevan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

K.Kuganantham Vs The State Rep. by

Juluit Mary Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

G.Murugan, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu