1. Proprietary dispute involving refusal of registration of an agreement to sell, raising allegations of fraud regarding execution and procedural non-compliance under the Registration Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 98118
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
Neutral Citation No. -2026:AHC-LKO:75352
WRIT - C No. - 11162 of 2017
Rajendra Kumar and another …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. Thru Secy.Tacation and Registration Lko. and Ors.…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Srivastava, Jyotindra Prakash Pathak, Laxmi Kant Pathak, Mohammad Danish, Mohd.Mansoor
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anit Vishal Srivastav, Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Pooja Pandey, Pradeep Kumar Singh
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
Reserved on: 29.09.2026
Delivered on: 16.10.2026
(Irshad Ali,J.)
October 16, 2026
Adarsh K SinghDAHLu Di i g gc Ai hk taR nC l o lSy ow H u s rB iKg t e n oU n e fM c d Jh Au b dRy ic S: a - ItNurGeH a t Allahabad,
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contested jurisdiction, maintainability, and execution, while respondents argued the order followed statutory appellate procedure and relied on documentary and expert evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 56 , 57 )
3. The court found that registration proceedings cannot replace civil trials for title, and the administrative appellate review of refusal to register was legally sufficient. (Para 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 )
4. Statutory registration appeals are limited to confirming the registrabillity of instruments and cannot function as plenary civil adjudications of title or disputed substantive rights. (Para 95 , 111 , 112 , 118 )
5. Writ petition dismissed with vacation of interim orders, affirming the registration directive while reserving substantive title questions for determination by the competent Civil Court. (Para 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 )
6. Can registration appeal proceedings under the Registration Act adjudicate on complicated questions of title or fraud?
No, registration authorities are not substituted for civil courts. Their jurisdiction is limited to verifying the statutory requirements for registration rather than conclusively determining proprietary title or the ultimate enforceability of an agreement. (Para 94 , 95 , 111 , 112 )
7. Does a statutory order, passed during registration proceedings, prevent a party from litigating property rights in a civil suit?
No, statutory registration orders operate within limited parameters and do not equate to a civil decree. They do not foreclose a party's right to pursue independent civil proceedings to establish valid title or seek remedies like specific performance. (Para 63 , 64 , 111 , 116 )
8. Does a non-party with independent title have their rights extinguished by an order in a registration proceeding?
No, orders in registration proceedings involving other parties cannot extinguish independent title acquired through prior registered instruments, unless the independent interest was legally annulled in appropriate proceedings. (Para 115 , 116 , 123 )
A.F.R.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shiv Ganesh Singh, learned Additional CSC for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State, Sri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5 and Sri Amit Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the intervenor.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on following prayer:
“i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 30.3.2017 passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ petition:
ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties not to interfere over the land having no.392/0-5-0, 395 Ka/0-1-0, 356/0-14-0, 357/0-2-5, 359/0-7-0, 354/1-10-5, 364/0-8-0, 366/0-8-10, 367/0-9-0, 355/0-3-5, 397/0-1-0, 471/0-5-10, 477/0-13-11, half of 41/0-6-2 i.e.0-3-1 total 14 plots having consolidated area 5-11-07 situated at Gram Pura Husain Khan, Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil & District Faizabad which is in the peaceful possession of the petitioners;
iii) To issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case;
iv) To award the cost of this writ petition.”
3. Factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no.4 is a business trust which is being run, managed and supervised by the opposite party no.5. The land in question is situated on the eastern side of Faizabad National Highway/Faizabad-Allahabad Road at Gram Husain Khan, Pargana Haveli Avadh, Tehsil and District Faizabad. The said land was the valuable land of Sankramaniya Bhumidari belonging to the father of the petitioners, namely, Late Chotey Lal.
4. Father of the petitioners, namely, late Chotey Lal had sold some portion of his land to the opposite parties no.4 and 5 in the year 1985 after obtaining the requisite permission from the District Magistrate, Faizabad. Consequently, cordial relations had developed between the father of the petitioners and the opposite parties no.4 and 5.
5. Petitioner no.1 had also been working as a Turner in the Sugar Mill of the opposite party no.5 and on account of the aforesaid relationship, the relations between the petitioners' father and the opposite parties no.4 and 5 remained cordial for some time.
6. Father of the petitioners belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. The land in question being situated near the main Faizabad-Allahabad Road, was valuable property. Taking advantage of its valuable location, opposite party no.5 repeatedly expressed his desire and eagerness to purchase the remaining land of the petitioners' father. However, the father of the petitioners categorically declined to sell the said land.
7. Subsequently, when father of the petitioners was in dire need of money and keeping in view the fact that the opposite parties no.4 and 5 had earlier purchased some land from him in the year 1985, he approached opposite party no.5 for a temporary loan of Rs.40,000/-. Opposite party no.5 advanced a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the father of the petitioners but taking advantage of the circumstances and without disclosing the true nature and purpose of the documents, obtained his signatures on certain stamp papers.
8. After the aforesaid amount was repaid by the father of the petitioners, opposite party no.5 did not return the stamp papers/documents bearing his signatures despite repeated demands. The said documents were, thereafter, allegedly misused by opposite party no.5 for creating a document purporting to be an agreement to sell in respect of the valuable land of the petitioners' father.
9. In connivance with the opposite party no.5, the blank/stamp papers upon which the signatures of the father of the petitioners had earlier been obtained were fraudulently converted into an alleged instrument dated 30.04.1989 described as an agreement to sell, purportedly executed by the father of
