HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 49206 of 2016 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Sri V. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 & 5. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court is taken on record. 3. The petitioners have preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :- "i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.4.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 3 of 2015- 16 (Prem Lata and another Versus Manoj Kumar and others) (Annexure No. 11) to this writ petition and the order dated 17.6.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 3 of 2015-16 (Prem Lata and another Versus Manoj Kumar and others) (Annexure No. 13 to this writ petition). ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order No. Ka.Ni-7-684/11-2013-700(446)/2013 dated 13.08.2013 issued by respondent no. 2 declaring it null and void. iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their house purchased in the Khasra No. 1176 situated in Village Loni Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad." Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Upadhyaya, C.S.C., Rajiv Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay Manoj Kumar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. It is argued by counsel for the petitioners that taking into consideration Government Order dated 13.08.2013 the order impugned has been passed though the aforesaid Government Order dated 13.08.2013 has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.5742 of 2017 (Smt. Asha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & others) decided on 02.12.2019, copy of the judgement is annexed as annexure-2 to the rejonder affidavit. The operative portion of the order dated 02.12.2019 reads as follows :- "After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record as well as taking into consideration the law as laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kusum Lata (Supra), the law on the point in issue is as follows:- "(a) The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 confers unfettered and arbitrary powers upon the Registering Authority in violation of the express provisions of the Registration Act and such Government Order cannot be invoked to annul a document. The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 is not only arbitrary but is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. (b) 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." For the foregoing reasons, the Government Order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure No. 2) issued by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 in the Case no. 6/2012 (Sri Dharmendar Singh Vs. Smt. Asha Singh and others) are set aside. In the result, writ petition is allowed." 5. Apart from the same, counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Kusum Lata Vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ C No.2973 of 2016) decided on 18.05.2018 in which following questions were referred before the Larger Bench for adjudication :- "(a). Whether after a sale deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made? (b). Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent civil court? (c). Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?" WRIC No. 49206 of 2016 2 6. The aforesaid questions were answered. The last paragraph of the aforesaid judgement reads as follows :- "The reference is answered in the terms that 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." 7. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements hence the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. At this point of time, a prayer has been made by counsel for the respondents no.4 & 5 that since he has received copy of the rejoinder affidavit today in the Court hence some time be granted to him to go through the aforesaid judgements. 9. In this view of the matter, put up tomorrow, i.e., on 14.10.2025. The matter will be taken up at 10.00 AM sharp. October 13, 2025 Pramod Tripathi WRIC No. 49206 of 2016 3 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad