Disposed

Palaniammal v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC7 Jul 2025WP(MD)/18289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub Registrar refused registration of a sale deed citing Section 22A(2) layout approval. Court held the provision targets land developers, not intra-family transfers or transfers among co-sharers, quashed the refusal check slip and directed registration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Refusal check slip dated 19.06.2025 quashed; respondent directed to register the sale deed within four weeks. No costs.

Palaniammal Vs The Sub Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶7

Palaniammal ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Sub Registrar, Kariapatti Sub Registration Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 in Refusal Number RFL/Kariapatti/30/2025, refusing to register the sale deed dated 18.06.2025 presented by the petitioner, and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the said sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of agricultural land comprised in S.No. 109/12A3 admeasuring 1.62 Ares of Ariyanendal Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District without reference to the ground of non-approval of layout within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Saji Bino Special Government Pleader

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 and consequently to direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

The petitioner’s husband inherited 17 cents of property through a partition deed. Subsequently, he settled 8 cents of that property in favor of the petitioner/wife. Now, the petitioner intends to sell the said property. However, the respondent is objecting, stating that a small portion of the property was previously sold, and therefore, under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, the petitioner is required to obtain approval for the new lay out.

¶18

On perusing the sale deed, it is observed that a larger extent of property is shown, and thereafter 17 cents was inherited by the petitioner’s husband. From the said 17 cents, the husband had settled 8 cents in favour of petitioner.

¶19

It is seen that the petitioner or petitioner’s husband has not intended to lay out the property. The object of the Section 22(A)2 is to restrict the land developers and not to restrict to transfer the property among family members,

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶23

pacifies among co-sharers etc. Therefore, DTCP approval is not necessary to the

¶24

present transaction.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 19.06.2025

¶26

issued by the respondent is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶28

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

07.07.2025

¶30

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

¶31

KSA

¶32

To:

¶33

The Sub Registrar, Kariapatti Sub Registration Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

¶34

3/4

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶37

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶38

KSA

¶39

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.18289 of 2025

¶40

DATED : 07.07.2025

¶41

4/4

¶42

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

Palaniammal v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniammal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiruvithacode Muslim Jama Ath, Vs Alagumeena

Bindhumol Vs The District Revenue Officer

Pm. Rajasekar Vs The Inspector General of Registration

Mariappan, Vs The District Registrar

Thiruvavadudurai Athinam Vs The District Collector

V.Murugan Vs The Inspector General of Registraation