Allowed

Govindan @ Govindaraj v. The Sub-Registrar

Madras HC5 Jul 2024WP/3043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed of 7 cents of land on the ground that the land was converted to a house site without planning authority permission. The Court, following a previous decision, set aside the refusal and directed the Registrar to register the deed within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip set aside; Sub-Registrar directed to register the sale deed within 15 days from receipt of the order.

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs The Sub-Registrar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶7

Govindan @ Govindaraj .. Petitioner Vs

¶8

The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Palacode Dharmapuri District .. Respondent

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in reference of refusal check slip dated 22.10.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondent to register the sale deed on presentation by the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi

¶11

For Respondent

¶12

: Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu

¶13

Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Refusal Check Slip dated 22.10.2021 issued by the respondent, refusing to register the sale deed dated

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶19

09.10.2021 executed by the petitioner and for a direction to the respondent to register the said sale deed dated 09.10.2021.

¶20

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶21

2.1. The petitioner was allotted 7 cents of land in S.F.No.1040/2A,

¶22

Palacode Village and Taluk, Dharmapuri District, from his joint family property viz. , larger extent of land in S.F.No.1040/2, by virtue of the decree dated 15.03.2019, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Palacode, in O.S.No.24 of 2019 filed for partition and separate possession.

¶23

2.2. The petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with one

¶24

Shanmugam agreeing to sell 7 cents of land in S.F.No.1040/2A. As dispute arose between them pertaining to the said sale agreement, the said Shanmugam had filed O.S.No.126 of 2021, for the relief of specific performance. Pending suit, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where the parties have arrived at a compromise and accordingly, an award was passed on 11.09.2021.

¶25

2.3. Following the award dated 11.09.2021, the petitioner executed a

¶26

sale deed on 09.10.2021 and when the same was presented for registration before the respondent, it was rejected on the ground that the land has been converted as house site, without the permission for development from the planning authority concerned, as contemplated under Section 22-A of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶27

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶28

Registration Act, 1908. The said rejection order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not give

¶30

any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the nature of transaction that the land has never been transferred as house site at all and therefore, the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and the circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration, would not apply to the facts of his case.

¶31

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has been stated that when the property referred to in the sale deed executed by the petitioner was examined from the previous registration of documents in S.No1040/2A, it came to light that the property was converted as house site without approval from the planning authority, which is not permissible as per Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 and therefore, the respondent refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration. Further, the petitioner himself has admitted that the property is in unapproved layout. Hence, the respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

¶36

learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

¶38

the respondent had not at all considered the fact that the earlier transactions in respect of the same survey number, were made only as agricultrual lands and the petitioner had acquired the land in question in a partition decree and therefore, the said circular relied upon by the respondent as well as the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, would not apply to the facts of case of the petitioner.

¶39

Per contra , the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

¶40

for the respondent would contend that there is a clear bar for the registration of the document in question under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as far as unapproved layout is concerned. Hence, he would contend that the impugned order is within the frame work of law and when the law prohibits registration of certain documents, registering house sites developed without the permission for development of such land from planning authority concerned, the petitioner cannot seek registration. Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

¶44

This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the records carefully.

¶45

Since the issue involved in this writ petition has already been decided in D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar (W.P.No.426 of 2022 decided on 01.07.2024 ) , following the same, the impugned refusal check slip is set aside and the respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶46

With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶47

05.07.2024

¶48

gya

¶49

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶50

To The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Palacode Dharmapuri District

¶51

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

¶52

5/6

¶53

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

gya

W.P.No.3043 of 2022

05.07.2024

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

¶59

6/6

Govindan @ Govindaraj v. The Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindan @ Govindaraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Rukmani Vs the Tahsildar

C.Madhayyan Vs Mr.G.Aivoli and 3 others

Dasan (Died) 2. Kunju (Died) 3. K.B. Pushparaj Vs Kurusumuthunadar (Died) 2.P.SATYAM (Died) 3.C.DEVI(DIED) 4.ARULDASS(DIED) 5.LARA(DIED) 6.J.JEEVARAJ

Gopinath Vs The Executive Engineer

N.Ayyaswamy Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sankar Narayanan Vs The Special Commissioner and