Allowed

karunakaran.v v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Aug 2024WP(MD)/3353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal to register a sale deed. The Court held that a mere letter from the Executive Officer regarding pending planning permission cannot invalidate registration when the site is already registered. Petitioner was directed to register the document.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed, and respondent authorities are directed to register the document within one week.

karunakaran.v Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Date : 07/08/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021 and WMP(MD) No.2710 of 2021

Karunakaran.V

... Petitioner

The District Collector, Dindigul District , Dindigul..

¶11

The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, District Collector Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶12

The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,, District Registrar Office, District Collector Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶13

4. The Executive Officer,

¶14

Thadicombu Panchayat, Dindigul Tk, Dindigul District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER :-Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned refusal check slip RFL/2 No. Joint Sub Registrar Dindigul 1/2021 issued by the 3rd respondent herein dt 07.01.2021 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 3^rd respondent to

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021

¶20

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.Sarvagan Prabhu.S, For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal slip issued

¶24

by the respondent on the basis of the letter issued by the Executive Officer.

¶25

2.The petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2012. Thereafter, he has sold the same to third parties. When the document has been presented, the same has been refused to be registered on the ground that the Executive Officer has objected it.

¶26

In the counter filed by the respondents, it is their contention that

¶27

the said property was approved for framing the lay-out and appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Collector is pending with regard to the planning permission. Hence, at this stage, the document cannot be registered.

¶28

2/5

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021

¶31

I have considered the said submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

The purchase of the property in the year 2012 is not in dispute by the petitioner. Only when the petitioner tried to sell the property later, on the basis of the letter said to have been issued by the 4^th respondent, the document has not been registered. It is relevant to note that even merely on the basis of the letter, the registering authority cannot refuse to register the document. The document may be refused to register under two circumstances: that any of the document falling within the ambit of 22(A) and 22(B) of the Registration Act, 1908. That apart, under Section 34, when the registering officer is not satisfied as to the the identity of a person appearing before him who alleges that he has executed the document, in such a scenario, the document can be refused.

¶33

Proviso to Section 22(A) also makes it clear that though the approval has not been obtained and the same site is also registered, subsequent transaction cannot be refused to be registered. The proviso to

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021

¶37

Section 21(A)(2) makes it clear that house site is already registered, the same can be registered later, therefore, the bar contained under Section 22A will not operate.

¶38

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the

¶39

impugned order is quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to register the document within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

07.08.2024

The District Collector, Dindigul District , Dindigul..

¶44

The District Registrar, District Registrar Office, District Collector Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶45

The Joint Sub Registrar No.2,, District Registrar Office, District Collector Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶46

The Executive Officer, Thadicombu Panchayat, Dindigul Tk, Dindigul District.

¶47

4/5

¶48

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

¶49

WP(MD). No.3353 of 2021

¶50

N.SATHISH KUMAR,J

¶51

¶52

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.3353 of 2021

¶53

Date : 07/08/2024

¶54

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

¶55

5/5

karunakaran.v v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

karunakaran.v v. The District Collector

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

S.Kannan Vs The District Collector

Chandrasekar, Vs the Inspector General of

M.Somasundara Barathi Vs The District Collector

Mani Vs the District Registrar (Admn)

Kathiresan Vs the Appellate Authority / Deputy Inspector General of Registration

Ramasamy Vs The Deputy Registrar