← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/3682/2026dismissed

Sheik Mansoor v. The Sub Registrar

2026-02-11Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 11/02/2026

CORAM

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP(MD) Nos.3682 and 3683 of 2026 WP(MD) No.3682 of 2026 Sheik Mansoor ... Petitioner Vs Registration Department, Melapalayam, ... Respondent PRAYER :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number RFL/Melapalayam/102/2025 dated 20.11.2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the respondent to register the General power of Attorney Deed dated 19.11.2025 presented by the petitioner.

WP(MD) No.3683 of 2026 Sheik Mansoor, ... Petitioner Vs 1/6

Registration Department, Melapalayam, ... Respondent PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip in Refusal Number RFL/Melapalayam/103/2025 dated 20.11.2025 passed by the respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the respondent to register the General power of Attorney Deed dated 19.11.2025 presented by the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Abdulkabur For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER This writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned refusal Check Slip dated 20.11.2025 issued by the respondent and to direct the respondent to register the general power of attorney deeds dated 19.11.2025 presented by the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. By consent of both 2/6

sides, the writ petition themselves are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. When the petitioner presented the document/power of attorney deed for registration, the same was refused to be registered by the respondents on the ground that it is against Section 22(A) of the Registration Act and on rectification of the same and after obtaining approval, the petitioner was directed to represent the same. Challenging the said refusal, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner and his father divided the entire property into 506 plots and sold most of the plots; his father died in the year 2002 leaving his wife, his five sons including the petitioner herein and his daughter as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner and the elder brother of the petitioner died in the year 2014 and 2005 respectively. The share of the elder brother was devolved upon his legal heirs, ie., his wife, daughter and son Al Ameen. Now, Al Ameen executed a general power of attorney 3/6

in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of 16 vacant house site plots, which was rightly produced before for registration. However, it came to be refused citing Section 22A of the Registration Act. The learned counsel would contend that the document presented is only a power of attorney deed, for which, no approval is necessary. Hence, prays for interference.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would however contend that since it is an unapproved plots, the general power deed came to be rejected to be registered.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It appears that in the present case, no doubt, the petitioner's father has divided the entire area into 506 plots, in which, larger extent had already been sold. Now, the petitioner's elder brother's son has executed a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner with regard to 16 plots for the purpose of selling the same through the power 4/6

agent. When the plots are unapproved, necessarily the petitioner has to obtain approval from the concerned authorities. When it is more than eight plots, which are now brought for sale, certainly bar under Section 22(A) of the Registration Act would operate. Hence, for all these reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. Once approval is obtained, the petitioner can very well represent the settlement deed. No costs.

11.02.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR TO Registration Department, Melapalayam, 5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) Nos.3682 and 3683 of 2026 Date : 11/02/2026 6/6