Suganiya M v. The District Registrar

O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner vide Temporary Acknowledgement Receipt No.TP/242239798/2025, dated 11.12.2025, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of one cent of land out of a total extent of six cents in Old Survey No.231/6A4 (Patta No.4860), situated at Manamadurai Revenue Village Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai District. The petitioner, along with one Lakshmi, executed a sale deed in respect of the said one cent of land and presented the same for registration before the second respondent. However, the document was refused registration on the ground that DTCP approval had not been obtained, citing that the total extent of six cents had been sub-divided. It is further submitted that section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 would not be applicable.

¶3The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the subject property forms part of an unapproved layout and unless proper approval is obtained from the competent authority, the document cannot be registered.

¶4This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner acquired one cent of land by way of partition and the same was thereafter sub-divided. The petitioner now intends to alienate the said one cent of land by executing a sale deed.

¶5The partition of property and consequential sub-division of land, by itself, would not amount to formation of an unapproved layout. The transaction in question does not involve development or formation of plots as contemplated under the relevant planning laws. Therefore, the insistence of DTCP approval for registration of the document is wholly misconceived. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶6In view of the above, this Court finds that the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025, is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

¶7Accordingly, the impugned Refusal Check Slip is set aside. The petitioner is directed to re-present the sale deed for registration and upon such re-presentation, the second respondent is directed to register the same forthwith, if the document is otherwise in order and in accordance with law.

¶8Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

27.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No TSG To

1.The District Registrar, District Register Office, Sivagangai District-630 561.

2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District-630 606.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. TSG W.P.(MD)No.1739 of 2026

27.01.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.1739 of 2026 M.Suganiya ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Registrar, District Register Office, Sivagangai District-630 561. 2.The Sub Registrar, Sub Register Office, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District-630 606. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire relevant records related to the impugned Refusal Check Slip issued by the second respondent, vide RFL / Manamadurai / 21 / 2025, dated 11.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the second respondent to register the sale deed produced by the petitioner, vide Temporary Acknowledgement Receipt No.TP/242239798/2025, dated 11.12.2025 within a stipulated time that may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash, Government Advocate