Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH At JAMMU
Rahul Bharti, J.
Mohan Lal - Appellant
Vs.
UT of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 346 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Registration Act - Refusal of Registration - Section 17, Section 18, Section 34, Section 35, Section 52, Section 60 - The court examined the nature of power and domain of function of a registering officer under the Registration Act, 1908 in the matter of registration of a document. The court found that the registering officer cannot refuse registration of a document based on the nature of the land without an express legal prohibition. The court emphasized that the role of a registering officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial, and they are not entitled to examine the legality and validity of a document presented for registration unless there is an express legal provision enabling them to do so and prohibiting registration of a given document.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a plot of land and subsequently decided to sell it. Despite fulfilling all requirements for registration, the Sub-Registrar refused to deliver the registered sale deed, citing the nature of the land as the reason.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to return the registered sale deed was unjustified and directed the respondents to complete the registration and return the deed to the petitioner within a month.
Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to complete the registration of the sale deed based on the nature of the land, despite the petitioner fulfilling all requirements for registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the role of a registering officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial, and they are not entitled to examine the legality and validity of a document presented for registration unless there is an express legal provision enabling them to do so and prohibiting registration of a given document.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ and directed the respondents to complete the registration of the sale deed and return it to the petitioner within a month.
JUDGEMENT
1. This writ petition affords a fitting opportunity to this Court to examine as to the actual nature of power and domain of function enjoined upon a registering officer/ authority constituted and acting under the Registration Act, 1908 in the matter of registration of a document, be it a one enlisted under section 17 or Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908. This opportunity has come to visit this court upon getting posed with a situation in the present writ petition when for the delivery of a sale deed even after the parties to the sale deed having appeared along with their identifying witness in terms of Section 34 , admitting the execution of sale deed in terms of Section 35 and 52 by subscribing their signatures, and even getting charged beforehand with the deposit of the requisite registration fees, the Sub-Registrar concerned is not completing the act of registration as envisaged under section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 leaving the petitioner remediless except to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The situation so obtaining also gets tacked with a question as to whether a registering officer/authority can refuse/withhold registration of a document by referring to the subject matter of, or the transaction being effected under a given document without there being an express legal prohibition to register a document bearing a particular subject matter or pertaining to a particular transaction.
2. Before embarking to examine the legal position in this regard, the facts of the present case in the writ petition are required to be taken cognizance of.
3. Petitioner came to own seven marlas plot of land comprised in khasra no. 1142 min, khata no. 718 and khewat no. 64 in village Paloura, tehsil Jammu North, district Jammu. This seven marlas plot of land was purchased by the petitioner by virtue of two sale deeds both dated 16.10.2021 for three and half marla each from erstwhile owner Raghubir Singh Chib. The execution and registration of the said two sale deeds by the then owner Raghubir Singh Chib in favour of the petitioner had taken place on the basis of revenue record extract i.e., fard intikhab jamabandi, kharif 1959-1960 duly issued by the Tehsildar, Jammu-North.
4. Pursuant to the said two sale deeds made and registered in his favour, the petitioner also got Mutation No. 6876/Jeem, dated 02.11.2021 and mutation no. 6874/Jeem, dated 02.11.2021 in his favour. Thus, both in terms of law as well as record, the petitioner came to be recognized as lawful owner in possession of aforesaid two parcels of land three and half marla each combining together to constitute ownership of seven marlas of land in khasra no. 1142 min, khata no. 718 and khewat no. 64 in village Paloura, tehsil Jammu North, district Jammu.
5. The petitioner decided to alienate aforesaid plot of land of seven marlas comprised in khasra no. 1142 min by way of a sale deed dated 10.02.2022 in favour of one Rakesh Kumar Gupta for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,27,750/-. This sale deed, being a compulsorily registerable document under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, came to be presented by the petitioner joined by the vendee Rakesh Kumar Gupta for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Jammu-North.
6. The presentation of the instrument of sale deed dated 10.02.2022 by the petitioner for registration by online mode resulted in generation of an On line pre-registration summary dated 09.02.2022 at 06:09 A.M. detailing the names of the parties, nature of the document, names of the attested witnesses, value of the stamp duty paid and also the registration fee chargeable for the registration of the said sale deeds. Acting upon this, the petitioner even came to pay & deposit registration fee of Rs. 25,390/- on 10.02.2022 against a Receipt No. A-3683071, dated 07.02.2022 in the Form F.C.I. This amount, thus, stood paid as registration fee payable to the Government for the service to be given to the pet
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the role of a registering officer is purely administrative and they are not entitled to examine the legality and validity of a document presen....
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
The Sub-Registrar's powers to refuse registration are limited to specific grounds outlined in the Registration Act, and any refusal based on arbitrary reasons or external pressures is unlawful.
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
The Registering Officer must verify original documents for property registration to prevent fraud, and parties claiming rights must establish their claims before a competent court.
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.
The registering officer has no authority to withhold a registered document after the completion of the registration process, and any refusal must be based on clear legal grounds.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
