HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2451/2025 CM No. 5653/2025 Girdhari Lal …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate Mr. Dinesh Dogra, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 04.09.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present writ petition, has challenged order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the District Registrar, Samba whereby order dated 31.12.2024 passed by Sub- Registrar, Samba refusing to register sale deed dated 30.10.2024 presented by the petitioner in respect of land measuring 3 kanal 10 marlas falling under khasra No. 253 min, khata No. 88 and khewat No. 22 situated at Kathlai, Tehsil Samba, has been upheld. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 3. It appears that the petitioner had approached the learned Sub- Registrar, Samba for registration of a sale deed dated 30.10.2024 through his Attorney Holder for sale of land measuring 3 kanal 10 marlas falling under khasra No. 253 min situated at Village Kathlai, Tehsil Samba in favour of one Vinay Kumar, S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar. It also appears that the ownership rights in respect of the Sr. No. 77 2 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 land in question has been acquired by the petitioner in terms of Government Order 254-C of 1965 dated 07.07.1965. 4. The learned Sub-Registrar, Samba has after noticing the contents of the aforesaid Government Order and referring to the opinion of the Advocate General dated 16.08.2024, vide order dated 31.12.2024, refused to register the sale deed. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the District Registrar, Samba who vide impugned order dated 28.07.2025, upheld the order of Sub-Registrar, Samba. 5. A perusal of the order of refusal passed by Sub-Registrar, Samba would reveal that the same has been passed primarily on the basis of opinion expressed by the Advocate General. The appellate authority has upheld the said order on the grounds that the Sub- Registrar, Samba is under a legal obligation to see the legal character of the land and has not to merely rely upon the issuance of an online fard. According to the appellate authority, without cross-verifying the legal implications through historical records and relevant policy documents, a document of sale cannot be admitted to registration. It has also been stated that without issuance of clarification by the Government, in light of the opinion tendered by the Advocate General, the document could not have been registered. 6. If we have to look at the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, it provides for the nature of enquiry which is to be undertaken by the Registering Officer before registering of a document. It reads as under: 3 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.—(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26: Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under section 25, the document may be registered. (2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times. (3) The registering officer shall thereupon— (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. (4) Any application for a direction under the proviso to sub- section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. (5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees or orders.” 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a Registering Officer prior to registration of the document has to ensure that the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents appear before the Registering Officer within the time allowed for presentation of the document. Thereafter, the Registering Officer has to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. The Officer has also to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in the case of any person 4 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 appearing as a representative, assign or agent the officer has to satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear. 8. Section 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 lays down the duties of Registering Officers when documents are presented. According to this provision, the day, hour and place of presentation has to be endorsed on the documents. It has to be ensured that photographs and fingerprints are affixed and the signature of every person presenting a document for registration, is endorsed on every such document at the time of presenting it whereafter a receipt for such document has to be given by the Registering Officer to the person presenting the same. 9. Section 58 of the Registration Act, 1908 gives the details of particulars to be endorsed on the documents admitted to registration. This includes, the signature and addition of every person admitting the execution of the document, the signature and addition of every person examined in reference to such document and any payment of money or delivery of goods made in the presence of the Registering Officer. Section 58(2) further provides that if any person admitting the execution of a document refuses to endorse the same, the Registering Officer has still to register it but shall at the same time endorse a note of such refusal. 10. Section 69(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 confers power upon Inspector-General of Registration to frame rules consistent with the provisions of the Act. It reads as under: 5 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 “69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules.—(1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the 1 [State Government], and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act— (a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents; [(aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of section 16A;] (b) declaring what language shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district; (c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under section 21; (d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under sections 25 and 34, respectively; (e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by section 63; (f) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents; (g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub- Registrars of the books kept in their respective offices under section 51; [(gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of section 88 may be presented for registration;] (h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively; (i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and (j) generally, regulating the proceedings of the Registrars and Sub-Registrars.” 11. From the afore-quoted position, it is clear that the Rules under the Registration Act, 1908 have to be framed only in respect of matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 69 of the Act. Any rule or instruction which does not fall within the ambit of aforesaid clauses, would be beyond the rule making power under the Act, hence ultra vires the said Act. 12. A survey of the aforesaid provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear that the Registering Officer is not required to 6 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 verify title of the property regarding which a document is presented for registration. The officer has not to determine the question as to whether the person presenting a sale deed for registration, is actually the owner of the property in question. In fact, Rule 39 of the Registration Rules clearly lays down that Registering Officers are not concerned with validity of documents. It provides that Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse the registration unless they are empowered to do so by the laws and the rules in force. Similarly, Rule 42 enjoins upon the Registering Officers to resort to refusal with caution. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi Vs. the Sub- Registrar & Ors 2025 Live Law (SC) 402 has, after interpreting the various provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed by Tamil Nadu Government, held as under: “14. In short, Rule 55A provides that unless documents are produced to prove that the executant has a right in respect of the property subject matter of the instrument, the registration of the same shall be refused. Thus, if a sale deed is presented for registration, documents must be produced to demonstrate that the executant has acquired ownership of the property. In a sense, power has been conferred on the registering officer to verify the title of the executant. Unless documents are produced evidencing title as required by Rule 55A(i), registration of the sale deed shall be refused. 15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executants 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 7 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 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. 16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 Act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistency, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rulemaking power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act.” 14. From the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that a Registering Officer has not to act as a civil court so as to adjudicate upon the title of the executants. Once the Registering Authority is satisfied that the executants have complied with the procedural requirements, the registration cannot be refused on the ground that the executant did not have a perfect title to the property sought to be transferred. 15. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now proceed to advert to the facts of the present case. The petitioner claims to be owner of the land in terms of Order No. 578 dated 07.07.1965. The said order reads as under: “Government Order No. 254 of 1965 dated 7th July, 1965-The Government hereby grant proprietary rights on the State lands in favour of the displaced persons from non-liberated areas of the State who, in pursuance of Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954 or any other orders issued prior to the C.O. No. 578-C of 1954 about allotments in favour of such displaced persons, have been settled on such lands and partly on evacuee lands, subject to the condition that the allottees have continuously been holding the land from the date of the allotment and have been so recorded. The grantees shall be liable to the payment of land revenue assessed at village rates according to the class of soil which the land belonged to or has assumed on being cultivated, or, if there is no village rate available, to such land revenue as may be fixed by the Collector with regard to the assessment of similar land in the assessment circle in which such land is situated and also to the payment of cesses and other dues payable under any law for the time being in force.” 8 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 16. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that there is no condition attached to the ownership of the petitioner prohibiting him from selling/purchasing the said land. In fact, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a case of “Jarnail Singh Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” reported in JKJ Online 85255 decided on 02.03.2024 has held that ownership conferred in terms of Government Order No. 254/C is not ownership inferior to ownership as is understood in law. The court further held that once ownership rights are conferred and allotted under Government Order 254-C of 1965 provisions of the Cabinet Order No. 578-C of 1954 are not applicable and owner of the property by conferment of the property qua allottees’ land becomes full-fledged owner without any limitation on his rights and such owner can dispose of the subject property. In the face of this legal position, it is clear that no fetters are imposed upon the ownership of the petitioner in transferring the land in question. 17. Apart from the above, in view of the legal position discussed herein before, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had title or power to transfer the ownership rights in respect of the land in question. Thus, the action of the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar in refusing registration of the document on the ground that petitioner’s right to transfer the land is under cloud is not sustainable in law. 18. The learned Sub-Registrar, Samba and learned District Registrar, Samba has relied upon opinion of the learned Advocate General which has not even matured into a notification by the 9 WP(C) No. 2451/2025 Government. In fact the learned Advocate General has not in clear cut terms opined that the lands of the nature, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, cannot be transferred. Merely because clarification in this regard is pending and the same is yet to be issued, the Sub-Registrar, Samba and District Registrar, Samba could not have refused registration of the document in question, without there being any legal or statutory bar to admission of the document to registration. 19. For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Samba as upheld by the District Registrar, Samba are not sustainable. The same are, accordingly, set aside. 20. The petitioner shall present the document in question for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Samba, who shall admit the same to registration in light of the observations made in this order, if there is no other legal impediment in registration of the document under law. 21. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 04.09.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.11 13:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu