R.G.Ramachandran v. the District Registrar

Madras HC3 Mar 2025WP/5193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

refusal check slip; Section 22(A) of the Registration Act; unapproved plot; cut-off date 21.10.2016; Rule 15(b); Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules 2017; regularisation; Sub Registrar R.K. Pettai; District Registrar Thiruvallur; sale deed registration refused; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Doc. Nos.1016/2022, 1135/2023, 369 of 2025; disciplinary proceedings against Sub Registrar; W.P.No.3733 of 2025; house site registration.

What did the court decide?

No relief as prayed (certiorarified mandamus to quash the refusal check slip and register the sale deed not granted); petitioner left to seek regularisation under the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, after which the document may be presented and will be registered if otherwise in order; no order as to costs. ¶¶67

R.G.Ramachandran Vs the District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's sale deed can be entertained and registered despite the refusal check slip, given that three documents (Doc. Nos.1016/2022, 1135/2023 and 369 of 2025) had already been registered for adjacent plots. +1 more

¶¶51

Court's answer

The reliance placed on three documents registered for the adjacent plots cannot benefit the petitioner because those registrations were themselves opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act and have been put to question by a note to that effect; they will not enure to the petitioner's benefit.

¶¶62

Ratio / Principle

Since there was admittedly no sale of the plot prior to 21.10.2016 (the cut-off date) and the plot continues to be an unapproved plot, it cannot be dealt with or registered, as that would be opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act.

¶¶62

Key takeaways

The petitioner can deal with the plot only after getting proper regularisation from the authority concerned under the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017; if the necessary approval is obtained under those Rules, the document can thereafter be presented for registration and the same will be registered, if it is otherwise in order.ratio¶¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), by order dated 03.03.2025 in W.P.No. 5193 of 2025 (filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus), disposed of a challenge to a refusal check slip (Ref: RFL/Ramakrishnaraji Petai/127/2024 dated 30.09.2024) issued by the Sub Registrar, R.K. Pettai, refusing registration of the petitioner R.G. Ramachandran's sale deed over Plot No.86 (Old/New Survey No.100/1–100/1A), Vilakanpoodi Village, in favour of S. Murali. The Court held that (i) the three prior registrations for adjacent plots (Doc. Nos.1016/2022, 1135/2023 and 369 of 2025) were themselves opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act and would not enure to the petitioner's benefit, and (ii) as there was admittedly no sale of the plot prior to the 21.10.2016 cut-off date and the plot remains unapproved, it cannot be dealt with or registered, being opposed to Section 22(A). Applying the Division Bench clarification in W.M.P. No.15656 of 2017 in W.P.No.19566 of 2015 (dated 15.06.2017) on Rule 15(b) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017, the Court held that the plot can be dealt with only after regularisation under those Rules, failing which the document may be presented and will be registered if otherwise in order. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.5193 of 2025

¶7

R.G. Ramachandran Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The District Registrar Veera Raghava Nagar Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur

¶10

The Sub Registrar R.K. Pettai Sub Registrar Office Tiruvallur District Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶12

seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned refusal check slip in Ref: RFL/Ramakrishnaraji Petai/127/2024 dated 30.09.2024 issued by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to register the sale deed in favour of S. Murali, in respect of the property situated at Plot No.86, Old Survey No.100/1, New Survey No.100/1A in Vilakanpoodi Village, R.K. Pettai, Thiruvallur District on re-presentation within a stipulated time frame.

¶13

For petitioner Mr. T. Nixon

¶14

For respondents Mr. B. Vijay Additional Government Pleader

¶15

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

1/8

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned refusal

¶20

check slip issued by the second respondent dated 30.09.2024 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of S. Murali with respect to the subject property.

¶21

2. In a connected matter being W.P.No.3733 of 2025, on

¶22

07.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:

¶23

“The affidavit that has been filed in support of the writ petition is far from satisfactory. The 2^nd respondent has refused to register the document mainly on the ground that the house site is unapproved and it has not been regularised. In the affidavit, there is not even a mention as to whether any house site was registered after the coming into force of the 2016 Rules. In the absence of any pleadings, this Court cannot pass any orders by merely considering the typed set of papers.

¶24

When the above was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel sought for some time to file a better affidavit in this case.

¶25

Post this case at the end of the motion list on

¶26

12.02.2025.”

¶27

3. W.P.No.3733 of 2025 was thereafter listed for hearing on

¶28

14.02.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

¶29

“Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 07.02.2025, additional affidavit has been filed along with additional typed-set of papers.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that two sale deeds were registered in the years 2022 and 2023. Even subsequently, a gift deed was registered in the year 2024. It was, therefore, contended that there is no reason for the second respondent to refuse registration of the document presented by the petitioner.

¶31

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

¶32

2/8

¶33

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶34

Learned Special Government Pleader shall take

¶35

instructions and report before this Court regarding the stand taken in the additional affidavit and additional typed-set of papers filed today.

¶36

Post this writ petition at the end of the motion list on 24.02.2025.”

¶37

W.P.No.3733 of 2025 was once again listed on 24.02.2025

¶38

and this Court passed the following order:

¶39

“The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents based on oral instructions cited various reasons as to why the claim made by the petitioner in these writ petitions is unsustainable. The learned Special Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the concerned Sub Registrar. It will be more appropriate to take written instructions in this regard along with the relevant documents so that the submissions of both sides can be dealt with and final orders can be passed.

¶40

Post these writ petitions at the end of the motion list on 03.03.2025."

¶41

On 19.02.2025, when the instant writ petition viz ., W.P.No.5193 of 2025 came up for admission, it was directed to be listed

¶42

along with W.P.No.3733 of 2025 and accordingly, the instant writ petition was listed today along with W.P.No. 3733 of 2025 which is disposed of today by a separate order.

¶43

When this writ petition was taken up for hearing today, learned Additional Government Pleader produced written instructions dated 03.03.2025 received from the second respondent. A scanned version of the same is as follows:

¶44

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

¶45

3/8

¶46

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶47

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

¶48

4/8

¶49

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶50

Heard Mr. T. Nixon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that already three documents have been registered in this case in Doc. Nos.1016/2022, 1135/2023 and 369 of 2025 and therefore, there is no reason as to why the sale deed executed by the petitioner should not be entertained and registered.

¶52

Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader, based on the written instructions received from the second respondent, submitted that all those proceedings were opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act and the Sub Registrar concerned who registered these documents has come to the adverse note of the Registration Department and he is already facing disciplinary proceedings in which he has been placed under suspension.

¶53

The learned Additional Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.M.P. No.15656 of 2017 in W.P.No.19566 of 2015 dated 15.06.2017, wherein, the learned Additional Government Pleader specifically relied upon the following paragraphs:

¶54

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

¶55

5/8

¶56

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶57

“3. Rule 15(b) of Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017 provides that where no regularisation is ordered under the said Rules for an approved plot or layout, then such unapproved plot or layout shall not be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 9 of 1908) by the Registration Department.

¶58

It is, thus, clarified that transfer of plots, which had been registered as house sites before 21^st October 2016, except those which have been registered in violation of interim orders passed by this Court may be registered. Rule 15(b) is to be construed to apply to those plots which had not been registered as house sites prior to 21.10.2016.”

¶59

The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that

¶60

in the case on hand, admittedly, the plot was not registered as on the cut off date on 21.10.2016 and therefore, without getting proper approval, it cannot be registered since it will be opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act.

¶61

In the considered view of this Court, reliance that was placed on three documents which were registered for the adjacent plots have already been put to question by making a note to the effect that those registrations were opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, those registrations will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

¶62

That apart, admittedly, there was no sale of the plot prior to 21.10.2016 which is the cut off date and the plot continues to be an unapproved plot and therefore, it cannot be dealt with since it will be opposed to Section 22(A) of the Registration Act. If at all the petitioner wants to deal with the plot, it can be done only after getting proper

¶63

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

¶64

6/8

¶65

W.P.No. 5193 of 2025

¶66

regularisation from the authority concerned under the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Layouts and Plots Rules, 2017. If the petitioner gets the necessary approval under the said Rules, thereafter, the document can be presented for registration and the same will be registered, if it is otherwise in order.

¶67