The Madras High Court allowed writ appeals challenging a single judge’s order that directed the registration of sale deeds for properties situated in an unapproved layout. The Court held that Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 prohibits registration unless the land had been previously registered as a house site, which was not the case here. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and no costs were awarded.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, the District Registrar and Sub Registrar of Dharmapuri West, refused to register three sale deeds dated 19.07.2024 presented by respondents Mohammed Junaith, Vidhya and Ramani. The respondents filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the refusal check slips and direct registration of the sale deeds. The single judge allowed the petitions, prompting the present appeals.
Key Facts
- The subject land comprises Survey Nos. 506/2A, 506/2B and 506/2C in A.Jettihalli Village, Nallampalli Taluk, Dharmapuri District, with a total extent of 13,625 sq.ft.
- R.M.Sankar purchased the entire extent vide Document No.1528 of 2024 dated 13.03.2024 and executed a registered General Power of Attorney (Document No.3296 of 2024) in favour of his son S.Karthikeyan.
- The respondents purchased portions of the land: WP.No.38439 - 2,000 sq.ft.; WP.No.38446 - 1,744 sq.ft.; WP.No.38448 - 2,289 sq.ft.
- The sale deeds presented for registration were dated 19.07.2024 (TP/187808995/2024, TP/188525160/2024, TP/187814914/2024).
- Upon presentation, the second respondent (Sub Registrar) issued refusal check slips dated 19.07.2024 (RFL/Dharmapuri West/102/2024, 105/2024, 103/2024) stating the land was agricultural and could not be registered under Section 22-A & 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
- The single judge, while allowing the writ petitions, observed that adjacent house sites had been registered under Section 22-A(2) and that the respondents themselves had fixed the guideline value with reference to the same survey numbers as house sites.
Procedural History
- 13.03.2024: Execution of title deed Document No.1528 by R.M.Sankar.
- Date not specified: Execution of GPA Document No.3296 of 2024.
- 19.07.2024: Presentation of sale deeds for registration; issuance of refusal check slips.
- 2024: Filing of W.P.Nos. 38439, 38446, 38448 before the Madras High Court.
- 16.12.2024: Single judge’s order allowing the writ petitions and directing registration of sale deeds.
- 2025: Filing of W.A.Nos. 2881, 2882, 2883 (and connected CMP Nos.) challenging the single judge’s order.
- 06.10.2025: Judgment of Division Bench in Sub-Registrar, Salem Vs. D.Rajamanickam (W.A.No.3192 of 2024).
- 22.04.2025: Judgment of Division Bench in W.A(MD).Nos.705 &706 of 2025.
- 31.08.2026: Reserved on.
- 16.09.2026: Pronounced on.
The Parties' Positions
Appellants (District Registrar & Sub Registrar): Contended that the writ petitions were allowed at admission without opportunity to file counter affidavit, violating natural justice; the land was an unapproved layout; registration was barred under Section 22-A(2) as the plots were not regularised prior to the cut-off date of 20.10.2016; relied on Division Bench judgment of 06.10.2025.
Respondents (Mohammed Junaith, Vidhya, Ramani): Argued that the letter dated 18.03.2020 from the Inspector General of Registration clarified that no new road was created; relied on Division Bench judgment of 22.04.2025; asserted that the vendors had not created any new road or pathway, thus no impediment to registration.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the single judge’s order dated 16.12.2024, uphold the refusal check slips, and dismiss the writ petitions with no costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 permits registration of a sale deed for land converted as a house site without planning permission when such land has not been previously registered as a house site and where an unapproved layout exists with a newly formed common way.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
The appellants argued that the single judge erred in allowing the writ petitions at the admission stage without affording them an opportunity to file a counter affidavit, thereby violating principles of natural justice. They emphasized that the land in question was developed as an unapproved layout and that the appellants had rightly refused to register the sale deeds under Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 read with the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules, 2017. They submitted that the house sites had not been granted planning permission and were not sold as house sites prior to the cut-off date of 20.10.2016, rendering them ineligible for regularisation. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Sub-Registrar, Salem Vs. D.Rajamanickam (W.A.No.3192 of 2024 dated 06.10.2025) to support the proposition that unapproved plots cannot be alienated after the cut-off date without regularisation approval.
For the Respondents
The respondents contended that the letter dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Inspector General of Registration clarified that the land did not fall under the definition of “Layout” as no new road or street had been introduced. They further relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A(MD).Nos.705 &706 of 2025 dated 22.04.2025, which held that the said letter was applicable to similar facts. They asserted that the vendors of the sale deeds had not created any new road or pathway, and therefore there was no impediment to registration under Section 22-A(2).
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the single judge’s order was based on the erroneous premise that adjacent house sites being registered under Section 22-A(2) removed any impediment to registration of the subject sale deeds. It examined Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, which expressly bars registration of a transfer of ownership of land converted as house sites without planning permission unless such house sites have been previously registered as house sites. The Court then turned to Rule 2 Sub-Rule 8 and Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation of Unapproved Plots and Layouts Rules, 2017. Rule 2(8) defines “Layout” as (i) division of land into plots exceeding eight in numbers in the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area, or (ii) division of land into plots introducing a new road or street in areas other than the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area. Rule 3 prescribes a cut-off date of 20.10.2016 for considering regularisation of unapproved plots and layouts.
The Court found that the subject land is not situated in the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area. Paragraph 12 of the judgment highlighted that, as per the General Power of Attorney Document No.3296 of 2024, out of 35.50 cents, the GPA was executed for 31.25 cents alone, indicating that R.M.Sankar had left a common way from the total extent, which amounts to the creation of a new road that has been suppressed by the respondent. Consequently, the land falls under Rule 2(8)(ii) as a layout introducing a new road or street.
Regarding the cut-off date, the Court observed that the house sites in question were not granted permission by the planning authorities and were not sold as house sites prior to 20.10.2016. Therefore, they are not eligible for regularisation under Rule 3. The Court further held that the letters dated 18.03.2020 and 16.03.2020 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and the Principal Secretary to the Registration Department, respectively, do not override the statutory bar under Section 22-A(2) because the very foundation of the letters - the absence of a new road - is contradicted by the formation of a common way.
The Court also considered the claim of violation of natural justice regarding the admission stage. It found no merit in this argument, noting that the admission stage order was not challenged on that basis and that the substantive illegality of the single judge’s order warranted interference.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the order of the learned single Judge, which set aside the refusal check slips and directed registration, is contrary to Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the associated rules, and is liable to be set aside.
The Verdict
The writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos. 38446, 38448 and 38439 of 2024 is hereby set aside. No costs are awarded. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 22-A(2) Bars Registration Without Prior House Site Registration
Practitioners must verify whether the land in question has ever been registered as a house site before attempting to register a sale deed under Section 22-A(2). If not, registration is prohibited irrespective of planning permission or guideline value assessments.
Creation of a New Road Triggers Layout Classification
Even outside the Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area, the introduction of a new road or street during land division constitutes a “Layout” under Rule 2(8)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Regularisation Rules, 2017, thereby invoking the cut-off date and regularisation requirements.
Strict Application of the 20.10.2016 Cut-off Date
The cut-off date of 20.10.2016 is absolute; unapproved plots not sold as house sites by that date cannot be regularised, and any subsequent sale deed is liable to be refused registration under Section 22-A(2).
Letters of Clarification Do Not Override Statutory Bars
Administrative letters, such as those from the Inspector General of Registration, cannot be used to circumvent the clear statutory prohibition in Section 22-A(2) when the factual premises of those letters are contradicted by evidence of a new road or street.
Adherence to Natural Justice at Admission Stage
While the Court rejected the natural justice argument in this instance, it underscores that parties must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to file counter affidavits at the admission stage unless the court records a clear justification for dispensing with such opportunity.
