CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld the powers of the department officials to deny registration of a plot as a house site without the approval of the planning authorities under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The court also said the provisions of the Act cannot be expanded beyond its scope.
The ruling was given by a division bench of justices SM Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq recently while allowing an appeal filed by the Sub-Registrar, Salem West, challenging a single judge order passed on July 1, 2024 on the petition of D Rajamanickam, of Salem.
Rajamanickam had filed a writ petition to set aside a check slip issued by the Sub-Registrar, refusing to register a settlement deed in 2021 for a land measuring 3508 sq ft, citing lack of approval of the house site from the planning authorities as mandated under Section 22A of the Registration Act.
The single judge ordered in favour of the petitioner and quashed the refusal check slip stating that the settlement deed could be registered since the surrounding plots were registered as house sites.
However, the division bench overturned the single judge’s order.
Referring to Section 22A (2) of the Registration Act, the bench said that under this provision, the Registering Authority is empowered to refuse registration of instruments relating to transfer of ownership of lands converted to house sites without permission from the Planning Authority.
In the present case, no approval has been obtained from the Planning Authority in respect of the subject plot in the settlement deed presented for registration. Section 22A (2) proviso stipulates that house sites in the absence of approval may be registered, if it is shown that the said house site had been previously registered as a house site.
The bench stated, “Plain reading of the proviso will denote that a house site, if registered previously as a house site, can be registered as house site. If it has not previously been registered as a house site, then it cannot be registered without obtaining appropriate plot approval.”
Elementary principle governing the interpretation of statutes lies in the language employed by the legislature. When statutory language is plain, clear, and unambiguous, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the words used themselves. Resort to external aids or interpretative devices becomes necessary only when the language is uncertain or capable of more than one meaning, the bench observed.
“The respondent (Rajamanickam) has to secure necessary house site approval from the competent authority and present the document for registration. When the provision mandates certain requirements to be complied with, then it is to be complied with as it is for completing the procedures,” the court reasoned.
The High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, need not expand the scope of the provision under the statute which may defeat the legislative intention and the objectives sought to be achieved, the bench stated.
The bench also disapproved of the undertaking given by the respondent before the single judge to the effect that he would use the plot for purposes other than housing. “Such an affidavit of promise should not circumvent the compliance of the mandatory provisions contemplated under any statute,” it said.
