Frader, Vs The Sub Registrar

Frader, vs The Sub Registrar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 24, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1659761

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1659761
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Decided On: Jun 24, 2026
Case Number: WP(MD)/17539/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Frader,

Respondent

The Sub Registrar

Excerpt

.....village, radhapuram taluk, tirunelveli district. for petitioner :mr.a.rajini for respondent :mr.r.rajagopalan government standing counselorderthis writ petition challenges the impugned refusal check slip. the document is refused registration under section 22-a of the registration act, 1908, on the ground that the property is conveyed as a residential plot or for residential use without approval from the planning authority to convert the site into a residential one. in this case, the petitioner contends that the land is conveyed as such, without changing its use.2. in such cases, the matter is no longer res-integra and is governedby the judgement of this court in sankarakumar & another -vs- the sub- registrar, panpozhi (w.p.(md) no.29522 of 2025). this court considered the purport of section 22-a(2), the need to balance the constitutional right of the owners of the property under article 300-a with the enforcement of development control legislation and the rules framed thereunder. it held that, irrespective of the location of the land, if the executant and the claimant of the document express an intention to use the property as such, without converting its nature, then, irrespective of the size of the land, boundary, abutting a pathway/road, etc., the document shall be registered, on condition that affidavits in four sets be executed and filed before this court, the sub- registrar, the local body and the tangedco. it is made clear that the party breaching the undertaking will also be liable for contempt of this court, in addition to other actions.3. the affidavit containing the following undertaking shall beexecuted by the claimant in whose favour the title vests under the document: “i undertake not to use the property as a residential/commercial site or such other change of user, unless due permission is obtained from the planning authority. without due approval, i will not develop the site by changing its use, and will not put up any residential or.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 24.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)Nos.12977, 12980 of 2026 Frader ... Petitioner - Vs. - The Sub Registrar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 Vide Refusal Check Slip No. RFL/Radhapuram/50/2026 in TP/279103835/2026 issued by the Respondent and subsequently set aside the same as illegal and erroneous and consequently direct him to register the Sale Deed as presented by the Petitioner in respect of the property bearing Survey No.521/3B1 situated at Thiruvambalapuram Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner :Mr.A.Rajini For Respondent :Mr.R.Rajagopalan Government Standing Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition challenges the impugned refusal check slip. The document is refused registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground that the property is conveyed as a residential plot or for residential use without approval from the planning authority to convert the site into a residential one. In this case, the petitioner contends that the land is conveyed as such, without changing its use.

2. In such cases, the matter is no longer res-integra and is governed

by the Judgement of this Court in Sankarakumar & another -Vs- The Sub- Registrar, Panpozhi (W.P.(MD) No.29522 of 2025). This Court considered the purport of Section 22-A(2), the need to balance the Constitutional Right of the owners of the property under Article 300-A with the enforcement of development control legislation and the rules framed thereunder. It held that, irrespective of the location of the land, if the executant and the claimant of the document express an intention to use the property as such, without converting its nature, then, irrespective of the size of the land, boundary, abutting a pathway/road, etc., the document shall be registered, on condition that affidavits in four sets be executed and filed before this Court, the Sub- Registrar, the local body and the Tangedco. It is made clear that the party breaching the undertaking will also be liable for contempt of this Court, in addition to other actions.

3. The affidavit containing the following undertaking shall be

executed by the claimant in whose favour the title vests under the document: “I undertake not to use the property as a residential/commercial site or such other change of user, unless due permission is obtained from the planning authority. Without due approval, I will not develop the site by changing its use, and will not put up any residential or commercial building. I am aware that I may be liable to punishment for contempt of Court for violating this undertaking. I am also aware that I will not be entitled to claim electricity connection or water, sewerage, and other connections or services from the local authority or any other authority unless due conversion is made as per the permission of the planning authority.”

4. This writ petition is allowed on the following terms:

(i)The impugned order shall stand set aside. (ii)The claimant under the document refused for registration, in whose name the property vests, shall execute a duly notarised affidavit in four sets and file one set before this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this Order; Only upon filing of the same, a certified copy of this Order shall be issued to the petitioner.

(iii)Along with the certified copy of the Order of this Court, the petitioner will be entitled to represent the document along with three sets of affidavits. (iv)Upon representation, the document shall be registered if there is no other impediment. While re-presenting the document the petitioner has to correct the term Manai as Punja land and re-present it. (v)Along with the document, the affidavit filed shall also be scanned and uploaded. (vi)The two other sets shall be dispatched to the local authority and the jurisdictional Assistant Engineer of TANGEDCO concerned, who shall at all times consider the aforesaid undertaking and act accordingly. (vii)If the petitioner fails to file an affidavit as directed within four weeks of receipt of the web copy of this Order, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. (viii)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

24.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No am To The Sub Registrar, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

am 24.06.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Frader, vs The Sub Registrar Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy