Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 9: In a scathing order against what it called the “instruction culture” that keeps sale deeds in bureaucratic limbo, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Registration Act, 1908 gives a Sub-Registrar only two lawful courses—register the document or refuse registration under the statute—and does not permit a third option of telling citizens to “wait for further instructions.”
Justice Rahul Bharti, while deciding WP(C) No. 3618/2025 (Angrez Singh through attorney Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs Inspector General Registration, Jammu & Ors.), took exception to a communication issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hiranagar (No. SDM/H/SRO/2025-26/927 dated 27.11.2025) in connection with a sale deed dated 25.11.2025 presented for registration.
As recorded by the Court, petitioner Angrez Singh, acting through his registered attorney Ashok Kumar (GPA dated 12.11.2018), executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 relating to land in village Chak Haria, tehsil Marheen, district Kathua, and presented it for registration along with requisite revenue documents including fard intikhab jamabandi.
The impugned communication stated that “clarifications” had been sought from higher authorities on documents involving land owned under Government Order No. REV (LB) 202 of 2007 dated 12.06.2007, citing a clause about prior Government permission for alienation, and advised the petitioners to “wait further instructions” till directions were received from the office of the Additional Inspector General of Registration.
The High Court rejected this approach in sharp terms, observing that the Registration Act’s scheme does not allow such “luxury” to a registering authority to suspend decision-making, especially when a refusal order is appealable under Section 72, which itself indicates that a Sub-Registrar cannot keep matters pending while seeking “clarifications” from superiors.
Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Satya Pal Anand vs State of M.P. (2016), the Court reiterated that the Registering Officer’s role is administrative, limited to ensuring the document is accompanied by supporting papers, and that the officer is not expected to evaluate title like a quasi-judicial authority.
Holding that the Sub-Registrar had cited no enabling provision to justify the “wait” direction—and that such a course violates the mandate of law—the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Hiranagar to either register the sale deed or refuse registration in accordance with law within four weeks from the date a copy of the order is made available.
The Court also ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Inspector General Registration, UT of J&K for circulation to all concerned Sub-Registrars/Registrars for notice and compliance—signalling a wider clampdown on the practice of freezing registration files on the pretext of “instructions.” (JNF) |
