Chandra v. The Sub-Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 08.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

1. Chandra

2. Ananda Sundaram

3. Balasubramanian

4. Kuruvammal ... Petitioners Vs.

The Sub-Registrar, Ottapidaram Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi.

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned refusal check slip of the respondent in RFL/Ottapidaram/61/2025 dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 24.11.2026 and release the same within the time frame fixed by this Honble Court and thus render justice. For Petitioners : Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan For Respondent : M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned refusal check slip dated 24.11.2025.

2. Heard Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M/s.P.Sudarkodi Nachiar, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the materials available on record, it can be seen that when the petitioner presented a sale deed for registration, the same was refused on the ground that the necessary approval for the layout and conversion of the site into a housing site had not been obtained. Consequently, registration of the document was refused under Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire extent of the land originally belonged to the petitioner and his brother, who had purchased the property by way of a registered sale deed dated 17.08.1998. Even during the lifetime of the petitioner's brother, in the year 2004 itself, a portion of the land had already been alienated after being plotted out as housing sites. After the death of the petitioner's brother in the year 2006, further documents were executed in the year 2007 describing the property as housing sites.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would therefore submit that since the property had been converted into housing sites well before the cut-off date of the year 2016, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6. The learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to dispute the execution of the said documents prior to the year 2016. A perusal of the records reveals that the earlier documents have also been produced before this Court.

7. In view thereof, this writ petition is ordered on the following terms:- i. The impugned refusal check slip dated 24.11.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent.

ii. Within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall produce the copies of the earlier documents of the year 2004, 2007 and 2008 etc. The Sub Registrar shall verify the schedule and if the documents are described as Manai in those documents which were executed prior to the year 2016, then the Sale Deed shall be registered and if it is registered only as an agricultural land, due speaking order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible.

iii. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.06.2026 (1/2) rgm

To The Sub-Registrar, Ottapidaram Sub Registrar Office, Thoothukudi.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J.

rgm 08.06.2026 (1/2)