Allowed

Jai Venkatesh. L v. Deputy Registrar

Madras HC15 Oct 2024WP(MD)/14720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Deputy Registrar's refusal to register a sale agreement for agricultural land. Relying on prior precedent, the Court held that since part of the survey number was already registered as a house site, the prohibition under the Act did not apply, and the sale deed was directed to be registered.

What did the court decide?

Impugned refusal order dated 18.06.2024 quashed and Sale Agreement dated 18.06.2024 directed to be registered within seven days.

Jai Venkatesh. L Vs Deputy Registrar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

L.Jai Venkatesh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Deputy Registrar, O/o.Deputy Registrar, Daniel Thomas Nagar, Arulananda Nagar West Extension, Thanjavur-613 007.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Pattukottai SRO-1, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. .... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/1 SRO Pattukottai/35/2024 dated 18.06.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the sale agreement dated 18.06.2024 executed by P.Nallathambi in the petitioner's favour, in respect of 28.67 cents, Punjai Land, comprised in Survey No.84/4C1, Ponnavarayankottai Ukkadai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Dhalapathy Vignesh For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Govt. Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned refusal check slip in RFL/1 SRO Pattukottai/35/2024 dated 18.06.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale agreement dated 18.06.2024 executed by P.Nallathambi in favour of the petitioner, in respect of 28.67 cents, Punjai Land, comprised in Survey No.84/4C1, Ponnavarayankottai Ukkadai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶19

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the petitioner has entered an agreement for purchase of an agricultural land to an extent of 28.67 cents in Survey No.84/4C1, Ponnavarayankottai Ukkadai Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. When the said agreement was presented for registration, the same has been refused to be registered on the ground that it is an unapproved house site. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶23

3 . It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

that in the same survey number 10 cents were already been sold and documents have been registered by the same Sub-Registrar as document No.1681/2023. When the agreement was entered in respect of the remaining agricultural land, the same has been refused to be registered. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶25

4. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

5. The bar contained under Section 22-A is to prevent the massive conversion of the agricultural land and the same cannot be put against all the matters. Only when there is a concrete evidence to show that the agricultural land has been converted as a house site without DTCP approval, such prohibition will come into play. Further, it is relevant to note that the proviso to Section 22-A(2) makes it clear that the house sites, without such permission, may be registered if it is shown that the same house site has been previously registered as house site. In

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶30

the case on hand, in the same survey number 10 cents have already been registered

¶31

vide document No.1681/2023 and therefore, now there is no bar for registering the sale agreement dated 18.06.2024 presented by the petitioner. This aspect has been elaborately dealt by this Court in D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in W.P.No.426 of 2022, wherein this Court has held as follows :

¶32

“17. The clarification issued above would indicate that the bar contained under Section 22-A is only with regard to unapproved lay out which was formed without the permission for development from planning authority concerned and new roads or streets have been laid after the amendment and not in respect of the Unapproved Layout prior to the amendment came into being. Such view of the mater as the layout was formed in 2020 and several plots had already been sold, registration of settlement deed executed by the petitioner for the remaining extent of land retained and held by the petitioner in favour of his son cannot be refused. As already held such land can be used for any purposes other than housing development. Even any one of the adjacent land owners may wish to purchase such land for the purpose of using it as vacant land or for any other purpose other than housing development. Therefore, transfer of such land cannot be said to be totally prohibited, if transfer of such land is totally prohibited, it would certainly violate the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The very object of introducing Section 22-A by way of Tamil Nadu Act is only to restrict conversion of agricultural land or any other land as unapproved house sites without the permission for development of such land from planning authority concerned. Therefore, bar contained under

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶36

Section 22-A cannot be applied in a mechanical fashion and registration cannot be refused and restraining the owner of such land from using the land for any other purposes other than housing development.”

¶37

In the light of the above settled provision of law, the impugned refusal slip cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶38

6 . Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the 2 nd respondent dated 18.06.2024 stands quashed and the 2 nd respondent is directed to register the sale agreement dated 18.06.2024 presented by the petitioner, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

15.10.2024

¶40

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsm

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶44

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶45

vsm

¶46

¶47

1.Deputy Registrar, O/o.Deputy Registrar, Daniel Thomas Nagar, Arulananda Nagar West Extension, Thanjavur-613 007.

¶48

2.The Sub Registrar, Pattukottai SRO-1, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.14720 of 2024

¶50

15.10.2024

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

Jai Venkatesh. L v. Deputy Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Venkatesh. L v. Deputy 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

Alagappan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

S.Mathiazhagan Vs The Banking Ombudsman

V.Alaguraja Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Raju Vs The Inspector of General of Registration

Raja Vs The Sub Registrar

Kumuthini Vs The Tahsildar