E.Satheesh v. The District Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Mr.E.Satheesh ... Petitioner in both Writ Petitions Vs.

1.The District Registrar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Thuckalay Sub Registrar Office, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents in both Writ Petitions COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slips in No.RFL/Thuckalay/292/2025 & No.RFL/Thuckalay/289/2025 dated 27.11.2025 & 26.11.2025, respectively, of the second respondent and quash the same and 1/6

direct the second respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 26.11.2025 executed by this petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate [In both Writ Petitions] COMMON ORDER Challenge has been made against the impugned refusal check slips dated 26.11.2025 and 27.11.2025.

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has purchased 24 cents of land situated at Re-survey No.778/1A and 788/1B of Muthalakurichi Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District from one Rajan on 06.11.2019. Ever since the purchase, he has been in peaceful possession of the said property. Now the petitioner intends to settle 5 cents of the property to his sister and 6 cents of the property to his wife and presented the settlement deeds dated 26.11.2025 before the second respondent 2/6

for registration. However, the same came to be refused by the second respondent citing the reason that the subject property is an unapproved layout and there is a bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence, the present Writ Petitions. 3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent would submit that since the subject property is in the form of a layout, bar under Section 22-A comes into play and hence, the second respondent was not in a position to register the settlement deeds.

4.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5.Admittedly, in the present case, out of 24 cents which was purchased by the petitioner on 06.11.2019, the petitioner now intends to settle 5 cents to his sister and 6 cents to his wife. At any cost, settling the property to the family member of the petitioner cannot be construed as formation of lay out and selling the same as unapproved plot. The bar under Section 22-A would come into effect only when the layout is formed and if it is sold out to third parties. Further, clarification has been issued by the Inspector 3/6

General of Registration dated 18.03.2020, wherein it is very clearly stated that layout should be formed with not less than 8 plots and with formation of 8 plots if it is sold, then the question of unapproved layout will arise. In the present case, only two plots are intended to be settled by the petitioner in favour of his family members. At no stretch of imagination, the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act will come into force. 6.Such being the case, the impugned refusal check slips dated 26.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the settlement deeds before the second respondent and upon re-presentation, the second respondent is directed to register the same, forthwith.

7.Accordingly, these Writ Petition stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

18.02.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6

To 1.The District Registrar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Sub Registrar, Thuckalay Sub Registrar Office, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

5/6

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

MR 18.02.2026 6/6