Rose Darvin vs The Sub Registrar — WP(MD)/14289/2026
Case under Others Section other. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 21st May 2026.
CNR: HCMD010676972026
Filing Number
WP(MD)/41578/2026
Filing Date
19-05-2026
Registration No
WP(MD)/14289/2026
Registration Date
19-05-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Registration ( 132 )
Sub-Category
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
21st May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rose Darvin
Adv. S.VISHNUVARDHAN,S.HARSHITHA ,S.HARSHITHA , ,B.AJAYBRABU,MUTHUKUMAR P,DEEPAKSIVA S,S.HARSHITHA
Respondent(s)
The Sub Registrar
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
ADMISSION (REGISTRATION CASES)
ADMISSION (REGISTRATION CASES)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | ADMISSION (REGISTRATION CASES) |
| 21-05-2026 | ADMISSION (REGISTRATION CASES) |
Orders
Summary: WP(MD)/14289/2026 - Rose Darvin v. The Sub Registrar The court allowed Rose Darvin's petition challenging the Sub Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Following precedent from Sankarakumar v. Sub-Registrar, the court held that land can be registered without planning authority approval if the parties intend no change of use, provided the claimant executes a notarized affidavit undertaking not to convert the property to residential/commercial use without due permission and accepting liability for contempt if breached. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: WP(MD)/14289/2026 - Rose Darvin v. The Sub Registrar The court allowed Rose Darvin's petition challenging the Sub Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Following precedent from Sankarakumar v. Sub-Registrar, the court held that land can be registered without planning authority approval if the parties intend no change of use, provided the claimant executes a notarized affidavit undertaking not to convert the property to residential/commercial use without due permission and accepting liability for contempt if breached. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts