Back
Registrar Becomes After Registration, Cannot Cancel Sale Deed:
The has firmly reiterated that once a sale deed is registered, the Sub-Registrar or Registrar becomes and possesses no authority to cancel the registration. The only remedy lies before a competent .
Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, while allowing a filed by Nilima Baishya and her son Rakesh Baishya, quashed two orders passed by the – one declaring a registered sale deed invalid and cancelling the , and the other dismissing a . The Court observed that the does not confer any power on the registering authority to reopen a concluded registration.
The Background: A Sale, , and an Objection
The dispute arose from a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas in Barsajai, Beltola, owned by Nilima Baishya. In , she executed a registered sale deed transferring a portion of the land to her son, Rakesh Baishya, who then obtained in his name. Nearly two years later, Nilima’s granddaughter raised an online objection. Following this, the , without notice to the petitioners, passed an order on declaring the sale deed “legally unsustainable” and cancelling the . The petitioners’ subsequent was dismissed on , primarily on the ground that no from the had been obtained at the time of registration.
Arguments at the Bar
, counsel for the petitioners, contended that the District Commissioner acted without jurisdiction. He argued that the does not empower any authority to cancel a registered deed after execution. The only avenue to challenge such a deed is through a . He relied on a catena of decisions, including , , and , which uniformly hold that a registration once concluded cannot be undone by the registering officer.
, standing counsel for GMDA, and , Additional Advocate General, defended the cancellation. They argued that requires an NOC for any transfer within the Guwahati Metropolitan area, and that the omission invalidated the deed. They further invoked (read with ) to claim that the power to register includes the power to cancel. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of the in , where a certificate of registration under the was held to be cancellable under the General Clauses Act.
The Court’s Legal Analysis: and Beyond
The High Court began by examining the scheme of the Registration Act. Sections 32, 34, 35, and 36 prescribe the procedure for registration, but nowhere do they envisage a power to cancel a document that has already been registered. The Court noted:
“The provisions of do not confer the Registrar with the power to cancel a document which has already been registered. Even in cases of fraud or forgery, the Registration Act does not confer such a power on the Registrar to cancel a registered document, though under the scheme of the Act, the Registrar has the power to refuse registration at the pre-registration stage.”
Drawing from the ’s judgment in , which applied the , the Court held that once the Sub-Registrar performs the act of registration, his role ends. Any subsequent cancellation would require a .
The Court also rejected the argument based on the General Clauses Act, emphasizing that the order cancelling the sale deed was a affecting accrued rights. Citing , the Court observed:
“The general power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to rescind a notification or order has to be understood in the light of the subject‑matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions… and the power is not available after an enforceable right has accrued under the notification or order. Moreover, Section 21 has no application to vary or amend or review a .”
Distinguishing the Atowar Rahman case, the Court pointed out that a certificate of registration under the is issued as an “order,” whereas the registration of a sale deed under the Registration Act is merely an act of recording a deed, not an order. Therefore, the General Clauses Act cannot supply a power to cancel a .
Key Quotations from the Judgment
“Once the sale deed is registered by the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar, the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar becomes and he/she does not have any power, thereafter, to cancel or rescind the registration of the deed.”
“Such flowing from a cannot be taken away without any statutory basis only by taking recourse to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.”
“A cancellation of a registered sale deed can only be done by way of filing a suit for cancellation before the .”
The Decision and Its Implications
Allowing the , Justice Kalita set aside the impugned orders dated and . The Court directed that the in favour of Rakesh Baishya, which had been cancelled, be restored.
The ruling serves as a clear reminder that registrars and district authorities must not usurp the power of civil courts. It reinforces the settled position that the Registration Act is a statute of procedure, not a source of substantive power to revoke transfers of property. Any challenge to a registered deed, whether based on fraud, lack of NOC, or any other irregularity, must be adjudicated by a after a full trial.
The judgment is likely to settle recurring disputes where revenue or registration officers unilaterally cancel registrations, often leaving innocent purchasers in the lurch. By drawing a firm line between administrative registration and judicial adjudication, the has provided clarity and protection for registered property rights.
