District Registrar Can Enquire Under Registration Act but Cannot Cancel a Sale Deed, Holds Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a District Registrar's notice, holding that cancellation of a registered sale deed falls outside the Registrar's jurisdiction under the Registration Act, 1908.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a writ petition that had remained pending since 2018, has drawn a clear line between what a District Registrar may and may not do when faced with a complaint of fraudulent registration. Justice V. Sujatha, sitting singly, held that while a Registrar is competent to conduct an administrative enquiry under Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908 and may summon parties to produce documentary evidence of title, the power to cancel a registered sale deed is simply not available to that authority. The judgment, pronounced on 24 June 2026, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the District Registrar within four weeks, while simultaneously making plain that any cancellation of the registered document would lie outside the Registrar's jurisdiction.

The Property Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner, Sornapudi Chinna Rao of Visakhapatnam, traced his title to land admeasuring Ac. 2.26 cents, covered by Patta No. 10, Sy. No. 14/2 in Mudasarlova Village, Visakhapatnam District. His father, Mr. S. Narasimhulu, had purchased the land in 1926 under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 972 of 1926. The father died intestate on 18 December 1986, and the petitioner, as the only son, succeeded to the property. His name was mutated in the revenue records.

Over the years, the petitioner sold portions of the land. On 27 April 2009, he sold 4,840 sq. yds. (Ac. 1.00 cents) under a registered sale deed to M/s Srinivasa Enterprises. Subsequently, on 23 August 2016, he sold Plot No. 6 in Sy. No. 14/2 admeasuring 345 sq. yds. to Mrs. Neelam Varalakshmi under a registered sale deed, and handed over possession on the same day.

What the petitioner had apparently not accounted for was a chain of events that had begun after the 2009 sale. M/s Srinivasa Enterprises had mortgaged the title deeds with the State Bank of India to avail a loan, creating an equitable mortgage under document No. 643 of 2009. When the firm defaulted, the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset. The Bank initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and simultaneously under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. An e-auction was conducted on 10 August 2016, at which Plot No. 6 admeasuring 345 sq. yds. was sold to M/s VST Fabricators. A sale certificate dated 26 August 2016 was issued and physical possession was delivered.

The difficulty was that the petitioner had, on 23 August 2016 — after the auction — executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mrs. Neelam Varalakshmi in respect of the very same Plot No. 6. M/s VST Fabricators brought this to the notice of SBI, and the Assistant General Manager of the SAR Branch, Visakhapatnam lodged a complaint with the District Registrar alleging fraudulent registration and seeking cancellation of the sale deed bearing document No. 4833 of 2016.

The Impugned Notice and the Challenge

Acting on the complaint, the District Registrar (Respondent No. 2) issued a notice bearing C.No. 1560/G1/2016, dated 28 November 2017. The notice directed the petitioner to appear before the Registrar on 19 December 2017 with all relevant documentary evidence to prove his title over the disputed property. The Registrar relied on Circular Memo No. G1/1843/2015 dated 8 April 2015, which prescribes the procedure to be adopted while dealing with alleged fraudulent registrations.

The petitioner challenged the notice by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the notice was illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, and that it usurped powers vested exclusively in civil courts. He sought a writ of mandamus declaring the notice illegal and a direction restraining the Respondent No. 2 from acting upon it.

When the writ petition came up for admission on 24 January 2018, the Court passed an interim order suspending the notice. The Court recorded that it was prima facie satisfied “with the lack of jurisdiction of the Registrar to enquire into the matter.” The interim suspension remained in force throughout the pendency of the petition.

Respondent's Position and Admitted Facts

The District Registrar filed a detailed counter-affidavit admitting the factual matrix set out by the petitioner. The Registrar's position, however, was that the impugned notice did not seek to cancel any document or decide any question of title or civil rights. It was issued solely to conduct a preliminary administrative enquiry to ascertain whether the registration of document No. 4833 of 2016 was vitiated by fraud, suppression of material facts, or abuse of the process of law. On that basis, the Respondent argued the petition deserved dismissal.

The admitted facts, as summarised by the Court, were: the petitioner had inherited Ac. 2.26 cents in Sy. No. 14/2, Mudasarlova Village; he sold 4,840 sq. yds. to M/s Srinivasa Enterprises in 2009; that buyer mortgaged the property with SBI; SBI auctioned Plot No. 6 to M/s VST Fabricators on 10 August 2016 and issued a sale certificate on 26 August 2016; and the petitioner thereafter sold the same Plot No. 6 to Mrs. Neelam Varalakshmi by a registered deed dated 23 August 2016, registered as document No. 4833 of 2016.

The Court's Reasoning on Jurisdiction

Justice V. Sujatha turned to Section 75(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers a Registrar, for the purpose of any enquiry under Section 74, to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evidence as if he were a civil court. The provision also allows the Registrar to direct who shall bear the costs of such enquiry, recoverable as costs awarded in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Reading Sections 74 and 75(4) together, the Court accepted that the District Registrar does possess the authority to conduct an administrative enquiry and to call upon parties to produce documentary evidence of title. The notice in that limited respect was within the Registrar's competence.

The critical limitation, however, was equally clear. The complaint received from the SBI's Assistant General Manager had gone further: it sought cancellation of the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner. The Court held that cancellation of a registered document is not within the jurisdiction of the District Registrar. That power, the Court indicated, is vested with civil courts. Since the relief of cancellation sought in the complaint fell outside what Respondent No. 2 could grant or direct, the Registrar could not proceed to that step even if the preliminary enquiry revealed fraud.

On the specific terms of the impugned notice, the Court found that the notice itself was confined to directing the petitioner to appear with documentary evidence of title. It did not purport to cancel the document on its face. On that reading, the Court declined to interfere with the notice.

Order

Justice V. Sujatha disposed of Writ Petition No. 338 of 2018 with the following directions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with all relevant documents to prove his title over the disputed property. On the petitioner's appearance, the District Registrar was directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 74 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court made clear that Respondent No. 2 cannot proceed to cancel the sale deed.

The interim suspension of the notice dated 28 November 2017, which had been in force since January 2018, stood vacated by the disposal. There was no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending in the matter were closed as a consequence of the disposal.