H S Thukral v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The petition is for the following reliefs:

I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order / direction directing the Respondent(s) to release the registered documents i.e. Sale Agreement and General Power of Attorney qua the Property bearing no. A-3/27, Jeevan Jyoti Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 to the Petitioner; KUMAR KAURAV

II. Grant any such further order or orders as this Hon’ble

2. The petitioner is an advocate by profession. The respondents are the governmental authorities.

3. The petition is seeking directions qua registration and subsequent release of the sale agreement and general power of attorney of property bearing no. A-3/27, Jeevan Joyti Apartments, Pitam Pura, Delhi -110034 (hereinafter ‘Subject Property’).

4. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner purchased the subject property jointly with his wife, namely Late Mr. Kawaljeet Kaur. On 14.10.2019 the sale agreement and general power of attorney of the subject property were executed and presented for registration before the office of respondent no.3 – Sub Registrar within the stipulated statutory time with necessary legal procedural formalities.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, after presenting the documents for registration, he visited the office of respondent no.3 on 21.10.2019 to collect the original registered documents, however, no definite information was furnished. It is further stated that subsequent efforts to ascertain the status of the documents, were made. However, no action was taken.

6. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that despite complying with all requirements under the Registration Act, 1908 and despite lapse of considerable time, the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duty of registering and releasing the documents without assigning any valid reason.

7. The respondent no. 3 – Sub Registrar in their counter affidavit dated 06.09.2023 has taken following position:

8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid would indicate that the refusal to register the documents is founded solely on certain communications issued by the Delhi Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (DCHFC), whereby a general embargo has been sought to be imposed on transactions pertaining to certain societies declared as defaulters. However, such communications, in the absence of any specific statutory backing under the Registration Act, 1908, cannot override the statutory duties cast upon the Registering Authority. The stand of the respondents does not disclose any legally sustainable ground within the framework of the Act to justify nonregistration of the documents, particularly when the procedural requirements for registration are stated to have been duly complied with by the petitioner.

9. The Supreme Court in K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar[1] has 2025 INSC 462 categorically held that the role of the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908 is essentially administrative in nature and does not extend to adjudication of title. The Registering Authority is neither vested with the jurisdiction nor empowered to examine the validity of the title of the executant to the property in question. It has been observed that once the document is presented in accordance with law, the executants appear before the authority, admit execution thereof, and all procedural requirements including payment of requisite stamp duty and registration charges are duly complied with, the Registering Officer is bound to register the document. The authority cannot refuse registration on the ground of perceived defect or absence of title in the executant, as such an exercise falls outside the statutory mandate of the Registering Authority and lies within the domain of competent civil Courts. Paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid decision is extracted as under:

10. The Court, thus, finds that the purported reasons assigned by the Sub of the document as presented by the petitioner. The Sub Registrar is, therefore, directed to consider for registration of documents, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi (supra), and if the Registrar is of the opinion that for any other reason which is not covered by the said decision, the registration can still be withheld, he has to pass an appropriate order.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition along with pending application stands disposed of.