$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15044/2022 AJIT SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Rameezuddin Raja and Mr. Ayush Sharma, Advs. versus SUB-REGISTRAR-I & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Lalltaksh Joshi, Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Tushar Sannu, Ms. Pulak Gupta for respondent no 2/ Delhi waqf board. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 30.01.2026 1. The petition is for the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus bydirecting the respondent no.l to hand over the registered sale document to the applicant/petitionerin respect to the subject property i.e. 1058, Kucha Natwa, Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006in compliance to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court and any other or further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter in the interest of justice.” 2. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.1 has held as under: “15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the 1 2025 INSC 462 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 12:26:39 executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.” 3. If the controversy involved herein is looked into in that perspective, it would appear that the document has not been registered presumably on the ground that the same belongs to the Waqf. The paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the reply/report filed by the Delhi Waqf Boar is extracted as under: “5. That, as the property in question figures in the official Gazette dated 16.04.1970 at page no. 368 serial no.7 prepared by the Waqf Commissioner. therefore, a letter dated 25.11.2022 was sent to the Sub- Registrar. 6. That, however, the copies of the record accompanying the petition show that the Suit of the Delhi Waqf Board qua the Waqf Property in question was decreed by the learned Trial Court while holding that the suit property is Waqf property and the said decision was set aside vide order dated 09.08.1983 by the learned First Appellate Court in RCA No. 75/1980. A perusal of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court shows that the said judgment is perverse and against the settled principles of law applicable to the waqf and the properties belonging to waqfs. Unfortunately, the Delhi Wagf Board's Second Appeal challenging the said Judgment dated 09.08.1983 was dismissed on the point of delay without any decision on merits. The said dismissal was challenged by the Delhi Waqf Board in SLP (C) No. I5773 of 1987, which was also dismissed on 22.01.1996, albeit without any observation on the mertis of the case. However, it appears that no corresponding changes were made in the Official Gazette Notification and the property is still shown as Waqf Property in the Official Gazette.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 12:26:39 4. It is, thus, seen that the aspect of the property being belonging to waqf has conclusively been decided by the Court and as of now, there does not remain any challenge pending in any of the Courts. Under these circumstances, there is no reason as to why the Sub-Registrar should not register the document in question. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the following directions: (i) Let the petitioner to appear before the concerned Sub-Registrar within the 30 days’ from of passing of this order along with all necessary documents. (ii) On petitioner’s appearance let the Sub-Registrar to register the document in accordance with extant rules and regulations. (iii) The Sub-Registrar cannot refuse the registration of the documents only on the presumption that the property belongs to the waqf, whereas, there is no such document to justify the said stand. If there is any other reason, the concerned Sub-Registrar has to specifically assign the same to the petitioner herein in writing. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 30, 2026 Aks/ap This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 12:26:39