S.Thangamani v. The Sub Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Thangamani ... Petitioner Vs.
The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri Sub Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the records pertaining to impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number. RFL/Nanguneri/1/2026 dated 05.01.2026 was issued by the respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to register the sale deed dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the property in Ayan Punja survey no 256/2B to the extent of 4.23 cents of north eastern portion out of 57.50 cents at Pappankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District within a stipulated period as framed by this Honble Court and thus render justice. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Mohanasundaram For Respondent :
Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader 1/6
ORDER
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 05.01.2026 passed by the respondent and and consequently directing the respondent to register the sale deed dated 05.01.2026 in respect of the property in S.No.256/B to an extent of 4.23 cents of north eastern portion out of 57.50 cents at Pappankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 05.01.2026, the impugned Refusal Check Slip rejects the registration of the Sale Deed on the ground that DTCP approval has not been obtained and part of land has been sold before the cut off date has been decided. the. Unapproved plot cannot be registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that from the schedule of the Sale Deed presented for registration, it is clearly stated that the property has not been described as a plot and that it is only a portion of the 'punja land'. When the title to the property vests 2/6
with the vendor of the petitioner and only a part of the said land is being sold without converting it in any manner whatsoever, it is not for the registering authority to reject the document .
4. Per Contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent by pointing out the Schedule of the Sale Deed would submit that even the boundaries clearly show the adjacent houses and this case is nothing but a clear case of converting the 'punja land' into plots and selling the same.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. It can be seen that the petitioner's vendor is the owner 57.50 cents at Pappankulam Village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Out of the same, he is selling only 4.23 cents being the north eastern portion. Therefore, it cannot be treated as Ayan Punja Land. It is crystal clear that the land is being plotted out and sold as plots. In such circumstances, when no part of the 'punja land' was sold as a plot before the cut-off date, the respondents are right in insisting upon DTCP approval 3/6
7. This court had earlier given direction that the unauthorized plots should not be registered. It is open for the petitioner's vendor to apply for approval of the sale or get such orders of regularization under the Development Control Regulations and thereafter, the Sale Deed can be re-presented for registration.
8. With such liberty kept open, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
03.03.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes rgm 4/6
To The Sub Registrar, Nanguneri Sub Registrar Office, Tirunelveli District.
5/6
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
rgm 03.03.2026 6/6