Srinivasan v. The Sub Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.5741 of 2026 Srinivasan .. Petitioner vs The Sub Registrar, Thottipalayam , Tiruppur South Taluk , Tiruppur District.

.. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number RFL/Thottipalayam/26/2025 dated 27.11.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 27.11.2025.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Devaraj For Respondent :

Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader 1/4

ORDER

Intending to purchase the land, the petitioner had approached the owners thereof, who executed sale deed dated 27.11.2025 in favour of the petitioner.

2. Upon being presented for registration, the request for registration was declined under the impugned refusal check slip.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 was wrongly invoked because the land in question is an agricultural land and not a house site. He relies upon photographs and order dated 15.10.2025 in W.P.No.12849 of 2025.

4. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, appears on behalf of the sole respondent. Adverting to the impugned refusal check slip, he points out that a lay out had been formed under the name Modern City and that about eight plots were created. He also points out that the request for approval of the lay out was declined because access roads were not formed. Because the petitioner is endeavouring to purchase unsold house sites, he submits that the request was rejected.

2/4

5. On examining the impugned refusal check slip, it is noticeable that it is recorded therein that a lay out under the name Modern City had been formed and that the request to regularise the same was rejected because of the lack of access roads. By pointing out that DTCP approval had not been obtained, it is concluded by the registering officer that the registration is not permissible in terms of Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act. I find that cogent reasons of refusal in line with the statute have been provided. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. This order, will not, however, stand in the way of the petitioner seeking regularisation and thereafter re-presenting the document.

6. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

26.02.2026 Index:Yes/No mmi To The Sub Registrar Thottipalayam Thiruppur South Taluk Tiruppur District.

3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi 26.02.2026 4/4