G. Santhosh Sivan v. The Sub Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY G.Santhosh Sivan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned check slip of the respondent dated 03.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents to register the sale deed dated 02.02.2026 executed in favour of one Balamurugesan, S/o. Pazhanivel with regard to the petitioner's property in S.F.No. 103/3B (Old S.F.No.103/3) with an extent of 16 cents situates at 1/6
Madathikadu Village, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2026. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthika For Respondent : Mr.A.Kannan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
Challenge has been made against the refusal check slip issued by the second respondent dated 03.02.2026. 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 subject property was purchased by the petitioner's mother's vendor on 05.03.2009, to an extent of 56 cents, which forms two parts. First part contains 40 cents and the second part contains 16 cents. Out of 40 cents of land 16 cents was purchased by the petitioner's mother and in the second part, the entire 16 cents was purchased by the petitioner's mother on 11.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother settled the property in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.2025. Now, the petitioner intends to sell the 2/6
property to third party and when the sale deed was presented before the respondent, the same came to be refused citing the reason that there is a bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
4.Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the subject land is an agricultural land, however road has been formed and it appears to be a formation of layout. Further, he would submit that if the parties undertake to maintain the subject property as agricultural land, then they do not have any objection for registering the sale deed.
5.Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
6.Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner's mother appears to have purchased the subject land on 11.09.2023 to an extent of 32 cents. The petitioner's mother's vendor purchased the property on 05.03.2009. There were two parts in the said property. One part consists of 40 cents and the other part consists of 16 cents. The petitioner's mother purchased 16 cents in first part out 3/6
of 40 cents and the entire 16 cents of the other part. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother settled the same in favour of the petitioner and now the petitioner intends to sell the same for his personal needs. Even assuming that the subject property is an unapproved layout, the same would have been formed as early as on 05.03.2009, when the petitioner's vendor purchased the property, which is well before the cut-off date ie., 16.10.2016. Therefore, the bar under Section 22-A would not be applicable in the present case. 7.Hence, the impugned order has been passed with total nonapplication of mind. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2026, passed by the respondent. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the petitioner to re-present the sale deed dated 02.02.2026 to the respondent, who shall register the same forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. 26.02.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR 4/6
To The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Keeramangalam, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
MR 26.02.2026 6/6