The Inspector General Of Registration Vs S.Gowri

Heard Ms.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant. The two respondents, who stood as writ petitioners purchased the land at Survey No.145/2, New Survey No.145/2B2 at Alappakkam Village, Nemili Taluk, Ranipet District to the extent of 9 ½ cents and 11 Cents respectively out of the total extent of 31 ½ cents.

¶24

It is to be noted that the said land is a Punja land for agricultural purposes. When that being so, after purchasing the respective lands, the purchasers / writ petitioners presented the sale deeds dated 21.11.2024 before the Sub Registrar, Kaveripakkam for registration. However, through the communication dated 21.11.2024, which was impugned before the Writ Court, two separate check slips were issued in respect of the registration of those lands, wherein the Sub Registrar refused to register the documents on the ground that the registration would be hit by the provisions of Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Registration (Amendment) Act, which prohibits the sale of unapproved layouts.

¶25

It was the stand of the official respondents in the writ petition / appellantsa herein before the writ Court that, under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, if

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

WA No. 3893 of 2025

¶29

unapproved layouts are brought to the Registrar Office for registration for transfer of the lands, such transfers would be prohibited as unapproved layouts would not be registered. Since these lands purchased by the respondents / writ petitioners can only be presumed as house sites since it is unapproved, the registration of such lands cannot be accepted by the registering authority.

¶30

Rejecting the said stand, the learned Writ Court allowed the writ petitions through the impugned common order. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

¶31

Assailing the impugned order, since writ appeal has been filed only against W.P.No.37947 of 2024, the learned Government Advocate would contend that in view of Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, such unapproved layouts or plots in unapproved layouts since cannot be registered, such a reason given in the impugned refusal check slips ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

We are not impressed with the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate for the simple reason that, even in the recital that has been placed before the registering authority, it has been specifically mentioned that it was a sale deed for Punja land to the extent of 9½ cents and 11 cents respectively. Nowhere in the recital it has been mentioned that it is part of a layout or housing

¶33

Page 3 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WA No. 3893 of 2025

¶36

plot. When that being the position, the nature of the land since being an agricultural land, that too a Punja land, on what basis the registering authority has come to the conclusion that it is an unapproved layout or unapproved plot and therefore Section 22A(2) would stand in the way, is not known.

¶37

Therefore, there was every justification on the part of the learned Writ

¶38

Court in allowing the writ petitions including the present one ie., W.P.No.37947 of 2024 through the impugned order and it does not require any interference at the hands of this Division Bench. In view of the same, the writ appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

(R.S.K.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 19-01-2026

¶40

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶41

KST

¶42

__________ Page 4 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

WA No. 3893 of 2025