Allowed¶34

Suganiya M v. The District Registrar

Madras HC27 Jan 2026WP(MD)/1739/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD) No.1739 of 2026; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; decided 27.01.2026; petitioner M.Suganiya; respondents District Registrar Sivagangai and Sub Registrar Manamadurai; refusal check slip RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025 dated 11.12.2025; sale deed registration refused for want of DTCP approval; land acquired by partition and sub-divided; unapproved layout; Section 22-A Registration Act 1908 inapplicable; refusal unsustainable and set aside; direction to re-present sale deed and register forthwith; writ allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Refusal Check Slip set aside; petitioner directed to re-present the sale deed for registration and the second respondent directed to register the same forthwith if the document is otherwise in order and in accordance with law; no costs. ¶34

Suganiya M Vs The District Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent refusing registration of the petitioner's sale deed on the ground that DTCP approval had not been obtained (the six-cent parcel having been sub-divided / allegedly forming part of an unapproved layout) is sustainable. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The partition of property and consequential sub-division of land, by itself, would not amount to formation of an unapproved layout.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The transaction does not involve development or formation of plots as contemplated under the relevant planning laws; therefore, the insistence of DTCP approval for registration of the document is wholly misconceived.

¶25

Key takeaways

The provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 have no application to the facts of the present case.ratio¶25
The impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025, is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226, Certiorarified Mandamus) by M.Suganiya before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy J., 27.01.2026) challenging the Refusal Check Slip (RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025) issued by the Sub Registrar, Manamadurai, refusing registration of a sale deed of one cent out of six cents in Old Survey No.231/6A4 (Patta No.4860), Manamadurai, on the ground that DTCP approval had not been obtained as the six cents stood sub-divided. Held: partition of property and consequential sub-division of land, by itself, does not amount to formation of an unapproved layout; the transaction involves no development or plot formation; insistence on DTCP approval is wholly misconceived; Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 has no application. Refusal Check Slip set aside; petitioner to re-present the sale deed and the second respondent to register it forthwith if otherwise in order. Writ Petition allowed, no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1739 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1739 of 2026

M.Suganiya

... Petitioner

1.The District Registrar, District Register Office, Sivagangai District-630 561.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District-630 606. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire relevant records related to the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent, vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to register the sale deed produced by the petitioner, vide Temporary Acknowledgement Receipt No.TP/242239798/2025, dated 11.12.2025 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash, Government Advocate

¶14

1/6

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.1739 of 2026

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner vide Temporary Acknowledgement Receipt No.TP/242239798/2025, dated 11.12.2025, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of one cent of land out of a total extent of six cents in Old Survey No.231/6A4 (Patta No.4860), situated at Manamadurai Revenue Village Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. The petitioner, along with one Lakshmi, executed a sale deed in respect of the said one cent of land and presented the same for registration before the second respondent. However, the document was refused registration on the ground that DTCP approval had not been obtained, citing that the total extent of six cents had been sub-divided. It is further submitted that section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 would not be applicable.

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(MD) No.1739 of 2026

¶23

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the subject property forms part of an unapproved layout and unless proper approval is obtained from the competent authority, the document cannot be registered.

¶24

This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner acquired one cent of land by way of partition and the same was thereafter sub-divided. The petitioner now intends to alienate the said one cent of land by executing a sale deed.

¶25

The partition of property and consequential sub-division of land, by itself, would not amount to formation of an unapproved layout. The transaction in question does not involve development or formation of plots as contemplated under the relevant planning laws. Therefore, the insistence of DTCP approval for registration of the document is wholly misconceived. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.1739 of 2026

¶29

In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned Refusal

¶30

Check Slip issued by the second respondent vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025, is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned Refusal Check Slip is set aside. The

¶32

petitioner is directed to re-present the sale deed for registration and upon such re-presentation, the second respondent is directed to register the same forthwith, if the document is otherwise in order and in accordance

¶33

with law.

¶34