Allowed

Sirajudeen Ali.a v. the Sub-Registrar

Madras HC4 Jan 2022WP(MD)/14176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a refusal check slip for registering a deed of sale for punja lands. The Sub-Registrar demanded DTCP approval for sub-division. The Court held that such approval is not required for the initial purchase of un-subdivided punja land and directed registration upon following due procedure, subject to an undertaking to seek approval only when converting to plots.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip quashed; direction to register deed if clarified within 10 working days; undertaking to obtain future approval permitted.

Sirajudeen Ali.a Vs the Sub-Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.14176 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.14176 of 2021

¶7

A.Sirajudeen Ali Represented through his wife and Power of Attorney Agent, S.Sindha Banu. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

2.A.L.Meera Banu ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip of the respondent in RFL/Melapalayam/35/2021 dated 30.07.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deed dated 30.07.2021 within the time fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam For R-1 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader. For R-2 : No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader who takes notice on behalf of the first respondent.

¶15

Since the petitioner had presented a document executed by the second respondent as a conveyance for registration and which was refused by the first respondent, non-presence of the second respondent before this Court is understandable. But, however, the petitioner had impleaded the second respondent as a party to the Writ Petition.

¶16

The petitioner, as stated above, had intended to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchase the lands which are claimed to be punja lands in Town

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.14176 of 2021

¶19

Survey No.2/2B at Kulavanigarpuram Village, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. This particular Town Survey No.2/2B is the western portion of Survey No.601/1. The eastern portion on subdivision had been allotted as Town Survey No.2/2A. That land in Town Survey No.2/2A had been laid out as housing plots and it is now called Jeyam Nagar.

¶20

The lands which the petitioner now seeks to purchase are punja lands. To substantiate this particular fact, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner, had pointed out a document which had been additionally filed and which is an extract of the Town Survey Land Register with respect to old Survey Nos.600/1, 601/P and with specific reference to Town Survey No.2/2B. In the said extract, Town Survey No.2/2B in which the petitioner is interested, is shown as Ryotwari Punja lands and the Adangal is in the name of Meera Banu, wife of Meeran Mohaideen, who is the second respondent herein. Learned counsel also pointed out a particular sketch, which is also given in the additional documents filed, clearly demarcating the two separate Town Survey numbers namely 2/2A which, as aforesaid, is now Jeyam Nagar and 2/2B, which, as pointed out, is still punja lands and which the petitioner seeks to purchase.

¶21

The petitioner assails the order of the refusal check slip of the first respondent / the Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District, who stated that the land which the petitioner wants to purchase requires DTCP approval. That approval is required, if the petitioner, on a subsequent date, converts the punja land into housing plots and intends to sell the plots to various purchasers. To protect the interest of the purchasers, approval is required from the competent authority.

¶22

As on date, the petitioner intends to purchase the lands namely punja lands. The owner is the second respondent. The purchaser is the petitioner herein. The lands are punja lands. They are, as on date, not sub-divided into plots. This, of course, is an issue of fact. If at all the petitioner seeks to sub-divide the land which he purchases, naturally he will have to go through the rigour of process of obtaining approval from the competent authorities. This is a point which is emphasized by Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader. But, so far as the document now presented for registration is concerned, since it still retains the character of punja lands, at this stage, the insistence of the first respondent to obtain approval would not strictly arise.

¶23

In view of all these facts, a direction is given to the petitioner herein to once again present the document for registration after following due procedure and if the first respondent has any clarifications, the petitioner can forward a copy of this particular order and on perusal of the same, a direction is given to the first respondent, if the document presented is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ otherwise in order, to proceed to register the same. The

¶24

2/3

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.14176 of 2021

¶26

petitioner, if required, may also give an undertaking that if at all he converts the land, which he now desires to buy, in the form of plots, then he would necessarily obtain approval from the concerned authorities. Such a document is not strictly required to be presented before the Sub Registrar, but still, if it is required, I do not think the petitioner would be put to any sufferings by giving such an undertaking.

¶27

The petitioner may present the document as aforesaid after following due procedure in manner known to law and on receipt thereof, an obligation is placed on the first respondent to register the documents provided, if it is otherwise in the order, within the normal time limit within which such documents would be registered by the first respondent and hopefully such normal time would not extend ten (10) working days.

¶28

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

¶31

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶32

¶33

The Sub-Registrar, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-340[F] dated 05/01/2022 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-467[F] dated 05/01/2022 )

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.14176 of 2021 04.01.2022

¶37

RD(12.01.2022) 3P 4C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Sirajudeen Ali.a v. the Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajudeen Ali.a 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

M/S. Mugavai Indane Gas Agency Vs the General Manager(Lpg-S)

M. Saiyedha Begum Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arunachalam Vs the District Collector

Reeta Vs the Block Development Officer

Sankiliammal Vs the District Collector

Ramesh K Vs the District Collector