← Library
Madras High CourtWP/47875/2025disposed of

Loganthan v. The Sub Registrar

2025-12-16Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.53471 of 2025 Loganathan .. Petitioner vs The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Anthiyur, Erode 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 of the impugned refusal check slip vide Refusal Number:RFL/Anthiyur/31/2025 dated 16.10.2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 16.09.2025 and return the same to the petitioner.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan For Respondent :

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

ORDER

The petitioner had presented sale deed dated 16.09.2025 for registration. The request for registration was refused under the impugned refusal check slip.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a small extent from and out of the larger extent of 26.5 ares. He also submits that such larger extent was allotted to the share of the petitioner's vendor under partition deed bearing Document No.2961 of 2013. Learned counsel contends that the impugned refusal check slip was issued by erroneously treating the property as a plot in an unapproved layout.

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondent. By referring to the schedule of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he points out that there is a reference therein to a 12 foot pathway. By also relying on written instructions, he points out that the petitioner's vendor has conveyed multiple plots after a share was allotted to him under partition deed. 2/4

4. The impugned refusal check slip refers to not only the 12 foot cart track/pathway but also the registration of multiple documents after such pathway was created. In these circumstances, there is basis for the Registering Officer's conclusion that the petitioner is endeavouring to register a plot in an unapproved layout. Consequently, the order does not suffer from infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Therefore, by leaving it open to the petitioner to seek regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.78 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 04.05.2017, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16.12.2025 Index:Yes/No mmi To The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Anthiyur, Erode District.

3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi 16.12.2025 4/4