Allowed

Hameed Ahamed Imthiyas v. The District Registrar

Madras HC30 Oct 2024WP(MD)/26209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court clarified that Section 22-A applies only to agricultural land converted into unapproved house sites via layouts. It held that selling remaining land after transferring a larger area does not constitute a layout, allowing registration of settlement deeds.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the refusal check slip; directed the 2nd Respondent to register the settlement deed within one week.

Hameed Ahamed Imthiyas Vs The District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.10.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.22210 of 2024

¶7

1.Hameed Ahamed Imthiyas

¶8

2.Aminathu Rahma

¶9

3.Fathimuthu Hidhaya

¶10

Rep. through their power agent Anees Ahamed

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶14

2.The Sub Registrar, Keelakarai Sub Registrar Office, Keelakarai, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal Check Slip in RFL/Kilakarai/137/2024, dated 24.09.2024 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the 2^nd respondent to register the petitioners' settlement deed dated 24.09.2024 and release the same.

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan, Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶22

2.According to the petitioners, when they presented the sale deed dated 24.09.2024, the 2^nd respondent, vide refusal check slip dated 24.09.2024, refused to register the same on the ground that the sale deed cannot be registered as it contravenes Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

¶23

3.At the outset, this Court is of the view that Section 22-A of the Registration Act will apply only if agricultural lands are converted into house sites. The very object of Section 22-A is only to prevent massive conversion of the agricultural land into house sites without permission. Merely because the remaining land retained by the owners has become lessor area and larger area has already been sold, it cannot be construed that there was a lay out framed.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶27

4.This issue was elaborately discussed in the case of

¶28

D.Rajamanickam Vs. The Sub Registrar, Salem (West) in W.P.No.426 of 2022, wherein this Court has held as follows :

¶29

“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 22A 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

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶33

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.”

¶34

5.In such view of the matter, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 24.09.2024 is quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to register the document presented by the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

30.10.2024 (2/2)

¶37

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶38

Yuva

¶39

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner, after obtaining xerox copy of the same.

¶40

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

¶41

4/6

¶42

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶43

¶44

1.The District Registrar, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶45

2.The Sub Registrar, Keelakarai Sub Registrar Office, Keelakarai, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶46

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

¶47

5/6

¶48

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶49

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J

¶50

Yuva

¶51

W.P(MD)No.26209 of 2024

¶52

30.10.2024 (2/2)

¶53

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

¶54

6/6

Hameed Ahamed Imthiyas v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hameed Ahamed Imthiyas v. The District 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

Arumugam P K N Vs The Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation

M. Thangavel Pandian Vs The Assistant Executive Engineer

Siluvai Vinoltan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Meena .K Vs The Inspector General of Registration

G.S.S. Masilamani Vs The District Collector

S.P.Mosas Vs The District Collector