Registration Authority Has No Power to Cancel a Registered Sale Deed, Allahabad HC Reaffirms

A Division Bench quashed an Assistant Inspector General's order cancelling a registered sale deed, holding that only a civil court can invalidate a registered document, even on fraud grounds.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed an order by which the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Gorakhpur cancelled a registered sale deed, holding that registering authorities become functus officio once registration is complete and cannot thereafter annul a duly registered document even where fraud or impersonation is alleged. The Division Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Vivek Saran, with the judgment authored by Justice Vivek Saran, allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Prema Devi, relying on a settled Full Bench ruling and a prior judgment that had already struck down the Government Order on which the cancellation was premised.

The Sale Deed, the Complaint, and the Cancellation Order

A sale deed dated 12 July 2016, bearing Registration No. 2452 of 2016, was executed before the Sub-Registrar, Gola Janpad, Gorakhpur. The registered deed conveyed land situated at villages Rakauli, Jharkata, Sodhaveer and Kohna, Gopalpur, District Gorakhpur in favour of Smt. Prema Devi.

On 14 July 2016, one Jang Bahadur (also referred to as Jangi, Jangi Prasad, and Jagdish) filed a complaint before the respondent no. 2, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Gorakhpur. His allegation was that his real brother, Firangi Prasad, had impersonated him and sold his land to Firangi Prasad's own wife, Smt. Prema Devi, by playing fraud.

Acting on this complaint, the Deputy Registrar, Gola, Gorakhpur was directed to submit a report. Other executants, the marginal witness, and the deed writer were also asked to submit proof of identity. After an enquiry, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration invoked a Government Order dated 13 August 2013 and, by order dated 24 September 2016, cancelled the registered sale deed.

Smt. Prema Devi challenged the cancellation order before the High Court by way of Writ-C No. 52748 of 2016.

The Legal Question Before the Court

The bench framed the sole issue as whether the respondent no. 2 was justified in cancelling the duly registered sale deed.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, advanced two distinct grounds. First, once a sale deed is registered, the registering authority becomes functus officio and neither the Sub-Registrar nor any superior officer has authority to cancel a duly registered sale deed. Second, the Government Order dated 13 August 2013 — the express basis of the cancellation — had itself been quashed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar Saxena and another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others.

Counsel for the respondents, Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, submitted that the order dated 24 September 2016 was based on a fact-finding enquiry and was wholly just and legal. He also argued that at the time the order was passed, the Government Order dated 13 August 2013 was in existence, and a subsequent quashing of that Government Order could not nullify the effect of the cancellation already made. He further stated at the bar that the contesting respondents were pursuing appropriate civil remedies.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench found no dispute about the settled legal position established by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. (reported at 2018(6) ADJ 344). The Full Bench had been constituted by the Chief Justice on the basis of an order dated 22 May 2017 passed in Writ-C No. 2973 of 2016, after a Division Bench found conflicting views between Radhey Shyam Arora v. State of U.P. and 6 Others (Writ-C No. 63439 of 2013, decided 20 November 2013) and Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others (Misc. Bench No. 2562 of 2014, decided 28 March 2014).

The Division Bench in the referring order had framed specific questions for the Full Bench, including whether a registering authority retains any power to cancel a registered sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908 even where impersonation or fraud is alleged, and whether such allegations necessarily require examination of oral and documentary evidence before a competent civil court.

The Full Bench answered these questions definitively: “a sale deed registered under the Act, 1908 cannot be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/fraud.”

On the Government Order dated 13 August 2013, the bench drew on Krishna Kumar Saxena and another v. State of U.P. and 9 Others (2018(5) ADJ 156), which had quashed that very Government Order. The court in that case held that the Government Order conferred “unfettered and arbitrary powers upon the Registering Authority in violation of the express provisions of the Registration Act” and that no enquiry could be initiated nor could the authority annul a document on its basis.

The bench in the present case also noted that in Krishna Kumar Saxena, the court had found that the respondents had no locus standi to question the veracity of the sale deed and had quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur along with the Government Order itself.

On the respondents' argument that the cancellation order pre-dated the quashing of the Government Order, the bench was unequivocal: once the Government Order has been set aside, any action taken by any authority under that Government Order cannot survive. The submission was rejected as wholly misconceived.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 24 September 2016 passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Gorakhpur, cancelling the registered sale deed dated 12 July 2016 bearing Registration No. 2452 of 2016, was quashed. No order was made as to costs.

The bench clarified that it remains open for the respondents to seek appropriate civil remedies available under law, and that any such remedy shall be decided on its merits without being influenced by the present judgment.