Palaniammal v. The Sub Registrar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Palaniammal ... Petitioner Vs.

The Sub Registrar, Kariapatti Sub Registration Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. ...Respondent PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 in Refusal Number RFL/Kariapatti/30/2025, refusing to register the sale deed dated 18.06.2025 presented by the petitioner, and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondent to register the said sale deed presented by petitioner in respect of agricultural land comprised in S.No. 109/12A3 admeasuring 1.62 Ares of Ariyanendal Village, Kariapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District without reference to the ground of non-approval of layout within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Saji Bino Special Government Pleader 1/4

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the refusal check slip issued by the respondent dated 19.06.2025 and consequently to direct the respondent to register the sale deed presented by petitioner within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner's husband inherited 17 cents of property through a partition deed. Subsequently, he settled 8 cents of that property in favor of the petitioner/wife. Now, the petitioner intends to sell the said property. However, the respondent is objecting, stating that a small portion of the property was previously sold, and therefore, under Section 22A(2) of the Registration Act, the petitioner is required to obtain approval for the new lay out.

3. On perusing the sale deed, it is observed that a larger extent of property is shown, and thereafter 17 cents was inherited by the petitioner's husband. From the said 17 cents, the husband had settled 8 cents in favour of petitioner.

4. It is seen that the petitioner or petitioner's husband has not intended to lay out the property. The object of the Section 22(A)2 is to restrict the land developers and not to restrict to transfer the property among family members, 2/4

pacifies among co-sharers etc. Therefore, DTCP approval is not necessary to the present transaction.

5. Accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip dated 19.06.2025 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

07.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes KSA To:

The Sub Registrar, Kariapatti Sub Registration Office, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.

3/4

S.SRIMATHY , J.

KSA ORDER MADE IN DATED : 07.07.2025 4/4