Disposed

V.Sulochana v. the Sub - Registrar

Madras HC27 Jan 2026WP/47527/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash a refusal check slip by the Sub-Registrar declining registration of a sale deed on the ground that the property is in an unapproved layout. The Court observed that the pendency of a civil suit is not a valid ground for refusal and directed the Registrar to hear the petitioner's explanation regarding the layout status and issue a speaking order or register the documen

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with direction to Registrar to hear petitioner and decide on registration within two weeks of receiving explanation.

V.Sulochana Vs the Sub - Registrar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶7

V.Sulochana

¶8

W/o.Vellipriyan, No.420, North Street, Sriipurandan Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Sub - Registrar Office Of The Sub Registrar, Main Road, Vikramangalam 621701, Ariyalur District.

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

PRAYER : This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constition of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip RFL/Vikramangalam/85/2025 dated 03.10.2025 issued by the Respondent, quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the respondent to register the petitioners sale deed dated 26.09.2025 and release the registered document.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.U.Baranidharan, Spl. G.P.

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Intending to sell 1.95 ares in favour of Mr.Mohandass, the petitioner executed a sale deed dated 26.09.2025 and presented the same for registration.

¶21

The request for registration was declined on two grounds, including that it is a plot in an unapproved layout.

¶22

Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, has handed

¶23

over a map with an aerial view of the property from the Tamil Nilam Website

¶24

to contend that it is this part of an unapproved layout.

¶25

On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a separate patta was obtained under patta No.3530 in respect of S.No.157/5A1. She also submits that the revenue records classified the land as ‘punjai’. She submits further that several registrations have been effected in respect of this property and adjacent properties.

¶26

On perusal of the refusal check slip, it is noticeable that it is recorded therein that the property is an unrecognized/non-regularized house plot. Another reason that O.S.No.60 of 2022 is pending is also recorded therein. The pendency of O.S.No.60 of 2022 does not qualify as a ground for refusal. As regards the first reason recorded therein, it is open to the petitioner to explain as

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶30

to why the property sought to be conveyed is not a house plot in an unapproved layout. After considering such explanation and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a speaking order shall be issued in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. Before taking a decision, a survey of the revenue property may be carried out, if necessary.

¶31

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed on the following

¶32

terms:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall provide an explanation as to why the property is

¶34

not a house plot in an unapproved layout within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

(ii) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of such explanation, the Registering Officer shall either register the document or issue a speaking order of refusal.

¶36

(iii) Before taking a decision, if necessary, a survey of the relevant property may be carried out. No costs.

¶37

27-01-2026

¶38

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶39

KAL

¶40

__________ Page3 of 4

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶43

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶44

KAL

¶45

¶46

The Sub - Registrar Office Of The Sub Registrar, Main Road, Vikramangalam 621701, Ariyalur District.

¶47

WP No. 47527 of 2025

¶48

27-01-2026

¶49

__________ Page4 of 4

¶50

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

V.Sulochana v. the Sub - Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sulochana 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

M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs The Revisionary Authority and Additional Secretary

Murugesan Vs the District Registrar (Societies)

M/S.a Rank Holdings Private Limited Vs The Secretary to Government

G.Ravichanthiran Vs The District Registrar

K.Ramesh Vs the Deputy Inspector for Registration

P.Ramalingam Vs The Secretary and Commissioner