A.Ponnal v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY A.Ponnal ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned refusal order passed by the respondent in Refusal No.RFL/Kariyapatti/111/2025 dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondent to register the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.11.2025 presented by the petitioner without insisting the DTCP approval or approval from the local body authorities within the time stipulated by this Court.

1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Babu For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

Challenge has been made against the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 24.11.2025.

2.By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in Survey No.42/5A is a larger extent in Kambikudi Village, Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Initially the layout was formed and a major portion of the property was sold by the promoter. Now, the petitioner intends to purchase a portion of the said property to an extent of 0.10.39 Ares. When the sale deed was presented for registration on 24.11.2025, the respondent refused to register the same, citing the reason that no layout approval has been obtained from the local body under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 2/6

4.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that admittedly, the promoter is selling 0.10.39 Ares subsequent to the cut-off date for registration of unapproved plots. As far as the plots already sold, there is no prohibition for sale. However, in the present case, the bar under Section 22-A will be applicable.

5.Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent would further submit that this Court in very may cases has granted permission for the purpose of sale of the properties in the event if the major portion of the land was already sold before the cut-off date. However, the said proposition of law was set aside by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court and the same is in force and therefore, the respondent refused to register the same. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

7.As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, even if a minor portion of 3/6

the land is sold after the cut-off date, still the bar under Section 22A will come into force. Unless and otherwise approval is obtained from the local body, the said property cannot be registered. Such being the case, I do not find any error in the impugned refusal check slip passed by the respondent dated 24.11.2025. 8.Accordingly, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 05.02.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR 05.02.2026 6/6