2026 (3) TMI 733 - HC - Indian Laws

Supervisory power does not permit cancellation of registered deeds; civil courts must decide validity except where fraud is apparent.

Section 68(2) supervisory powers over subordinate registering officers permit correction of registration office errors but do not authorize substantive ... Jurisdiction of registering authority - fraud apparent on record - Power of Registrar under Section 68(2) to cancel registered documents - Whether the District Registrar under the Registration Act is empowered to cancel the sale deeds by invoking powers conferred under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. Power of Registrar under Section 68(2) to cancel registered documents - HELD THAT:- The powers of Registrar under the provisions of the Act, 1908 to cancel the registered documents are no more res integra and the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. [2016 (10) TMI 1142 - SUPREME COURT]] Section 68(2) confers supervisory and control powers over Sub-Registrars and authority to issue orders relating to acts or omissions of subordinate officers or rectification of errors regarding registration books or offices. The court found no provision in Section 68(2) (or elsewhere in the Act) that permits the Registrar to cancel a registration once effected. The judgment relies on the binding legal principle that cancellation of registration is a substantive matter falling within civil jurisdiction and, absent an express statutory power, the Registrar or Inspector General cannot annul registered instruments; only the civil court can adjudicate and declare rights affecting registered documents. The court further held that the definition of 'fraud' for administrative action under the Act is narrow and that summary administrative proceedings cannot be used to determine disputed civil rights or to substitute for civil adjudication. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 14, 15] The order of the District Registrar nullifying the sale deeds under Section 68(2) was beyond the power conferred by the Act and thus not permissible. Jurisdictional limitation where civil proceedings are pending - HELD THAT:- The court noted that the parties had instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of nullity and that a counterclaim was pending; administrative nullification during the pendency of such civil proceedings usurps the civil court's role and may render the suit infructuous. The Registrar's action in 2016, taken after institution of the civil suit, exceeded the Registrar's supervisory powers and improperly adjudicated disputed civil rights by summary administrative process. The civil forum is the proper forum to determine allegations of fraud affecting title and civil rights, and administrative action should be confined to cases of fraud apparent on the face of the record, not to contested factual disputes. [Paras 6, 16, 17, 18] Entertaining and nullifying the sale deeds during the pendency of the civil suit was inappropriate and exceeded the Registrar's jurisdiction. Final Conclusion: The writ order impugned was set aside and the intra Court appeal allowed, the court holding that the District Registrar lacked power under Section 68(2) to cancel registered sale deeds and that such matters must be decided by the civil court, particularly where civil proceedings are pending. Issues: Whether the District Registrar, invoking Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, is empowered to nullify/cancel registered sale deeds (i.e., exercise power to declare documents null and void) during the pendency of a civil suit between the parties.Analysis: Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 confers supervisory and corrective powers over subordinate registering officers in respect of acts or omissions of Sub-Registrars and rectification of errors regarding the book or office of registration; it does not confer substantive power to cancel or nullify a registered document. Constitutional and judicial precedent distinguishes administrative superintendence from adjudication of civil rights and holds that cancellation or nullification of registered documents is a substantive matter for civil courts unless fraud is apparent on the face of the record. The registering authority may act only in cases of fraud apparent on record; allegations of fraud, impersonation or disputed factual matters must be pleaded and proved in a competent civil forum or addressed by criminal process, and summary administrative proceedings cannot usurp the jurisdiction of civil courts. When parallel civil proceedings between the parties are pending seeking declaration as to validity of instruments, entertaining and deciding a complaint under Section 68(2) to nullify registered deeds amounts to exceeding the administrative supervisory power and intrudes upon exclusive civil jurisdiction; administrative orders making sale deeds null and void in such circumstances are inappropriate.Conclusion: The order of the District Registrar nullifying the three sale deeds under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 is not in accordance with the powers conferred by that provision and is consequently set aside; the writ appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants.