← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3450/2026disposed of

S.Vellaipandi v. The Sub Registrar

2026-02-19Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP(MD) No.3450 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2860 of 2026 1.S.Vellaipandi 2.S.Chandrasekar 3.S.Esakkiappan 4.S.Govindarajan ... Petitioners Vs The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Vallyoor, 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 the impugned Refusal Check slip under RFL/Valliyoor/52/2025 dated 03.11.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.11.2025 in respect of the Nanji Lands to an extent of about 1/6

5.755 Cents (0.02.33 Hectares) Comprised in Survey No.342/4 in relation to the lands to an extent of 233 Sq Metres (Western 0.02.33 Hectares) on the 2nd from South out of the entire extent of 0.20.50 Hectare of land comprised in Vadakku Vallioor Part - 1 Village, Radhapuram Taluk and Tirunelveli District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ravinthan For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, Addl. Govt. Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check slip dated 03.11.2025 issued by the respondent and also seeking for a consequential direction to direct the respondent to register the sale deed dated 03.11.2025 in respect of the Nanji Lands to an extent of about 5.755 Cents (0.02.33 Hectares) Comprised in Survey No.342/4 in relation to the lands to an extent of 233 Sq Metres (Western 0.02.33 Hectares) on the 2nd from South out of the entire extent of 0.20.50 Hectare of land comprised in Vadakku Vallioor Part - 1 Village, 2/6

Radhapuram Taluk and Tirunelveli District, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have owned a land in S.No.327 to the extent of 32 cents, situated in Vadakku Valliyoor Village, Radhapuram Taluk. Tirunelveli District. Since the petitioners have no ingress and egress of thier property, they intend to purchase a property in S.No.342/24 and hence, a sale deed was executed on 03.11.2025 in favour of the petitioners. When the petitioners presented the said sale deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that there is a bar under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that, since the petitioners intend to purchase a pathway, it implies that a layout would be formed. Therefore, the respondent passed the impugned order and he prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

3/6

4. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioners' vendor has not formed any layout, and the petitioners merely intend to purchase a pathway to access their land, which cannot be construed as leading to the formation of a layout. The bar under Section 22A(2) would apply only when layout is formed. In the circular/clarification issued by the Inspector General of Registration dated 16.03.2020, referring to G.O.(Ms)No.78, Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 04.05.2017, the term "layout" has been defined to mean that if more than eight plots are formed in the Metropolitan area, it amounts to the formation of a layout, and no such definition is provided with regard to other areas. Since the layout is not defined for any area other than Metropolitan area, the definition provided in G.O.(MS)No.78 for the word "layout" can be safely apply for other areas as well. The same definition shall be applied to the petitioners' case. Now the petitioners intend to purchase a pathway to the extent of 4/6

33 cents to access their land. Hence, the question of invoking the bar under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 does not arise in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip issued by the respondent is set aside. The petitioners are directed to represent the sale deed dated 03.11.2025 before the respondent. Upon representation of the same, the respondent is directed to register the settlement deed sale 03.11.2025, forthwith.

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.02.2026 Index : Yes/NO NCC : Yes/No VSM 5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VSM TO The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Chettikulam Sub Registrar Office (Madurai North), Madurai District..

WP(MD) No.3450 of 2026 Date : 19.02.2026 6/6