AMINA KHATOON vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:14018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1252 of 2021
------
1. Amina Khatoon, wife of Abdul Rahim Khan.
2. Faiyaz Alam, son of Nurul Haque.
Both resident of Azad Nagar, near Madina Masjid, Mango,
P.O. & P.S. Azadnagar, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand.
… … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District
Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
3. The Additional Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District
Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District
Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
5. The Circle Officer, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District Saraikela
Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
6. The District Sub-Registrar, Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
7. Khaliqur Rahman, S/o Bashiruddin Ali Ansari, R/o Road No.5,
House No.10, Azad Nagar, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango,
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
8. Bashiruddin Ali Ansari, R/o Road No.5, House No.10, Azad
Nagar, Mango, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
… … Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee,

AC to GA-V
Mr. Shravan Kumar, Advocate
------

08/ 07.05.2026
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed

for the following reliefs:-
"(a) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the order
dated 12.01.2021 passed in Misc. Case
No.17/2020-21 (Annexure IV) by respondent
no.2 whereby the concerned respondent
1

2026:JHHC:14018
no.2 has annulled the sale deed
no.2020/SAR/660/BK1/640 dated
10.02.2020 and has further directed the
respondent no.6 to lodge FIR against
Alimuddin Khan which is bad in law in view
of the fact that said order is not in
consonance with the settled propositions of
law as also the same has been passed in
perfunctory manner.
AND
(b) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions upon the
respondents to not to interfere with the
peaceful possession of the petitioners over
landed property within mauza Tamulia,
Thana no.33, Khata No.181, Plot No.686,
Halka No.2 admeasuring 26.40 decimals
whereupon the petitioners are residing along
with their family members in a residential
house and are in continuous possession.
AND
(c) During the pendency of the present writ
application the operation of order dated
12.01.2021 passed in Misc. Case
No.17/2020-21 (Annexure IV) by respondent
no.2, be stayed."

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners
and learned counsel representing the respondents.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition
are as follows:-
3.1. Alimuddin Khan had got 16 Katha of lands situated at
Plot No.686, Khata No.181, within Mouza Tamulia, from its
previous owner - Mehtab Alam Ansari and Aftab Alam Ansari by
execution of General Power of Attorney, vide Deed No.1523 dated
2

2026:JHHC:14018
27.11.2012.
3.2. Khaliqur Rehman, and Basiruddin Ali Ansari are in
peaceful possession of the lands having an area of 8.46 decimals
and 8.02 decimals situated at Plot No.686, Khata No.181, within
Mouza Tamulia, through registered Deeds Nos.5028 dated
13.12.2012 and 5025 dated 13.12.2012, after having purchased
the same from Alimuddin Khan.
3.3. Alimuddin Khan, again transferred the aforesaid land
to one Amina Khatoon (petitioner No.1 herein), vide a registered
Deed No.640 dated 10.02.2020.
3.4. The private respondents felt aggrieved by the
aforesaid transfer of land, filed a case being Misc. Case No.-
17/2020-21, before the Court of Deputy Commissioner,
Seraikella-Kharsawan.
3.5. The Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan,
vide order dated 12.01.2021, had annulled the registered Sale
Deed No.640 dated 10.02.2020.
4. To adjudicate the present dispute, apart from the
right of the parties, this Court first needs to examine the modus
operandi adopted by the respondents in the form of aforesaid
impugned order, by vesting power of cancelling the registered
deed, upon the Deputy Commissioner, and whether it is legally
sustainable or not.
5. In this case, the Authority who has passed the
impugned order of cancellation of an admitted registered Sale
Deed, is the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella - Kharsawan. The
3

2026:JHHC:14018
Deputy Commissioner while declaring the registered sale deed
null and void, held the Deed to be forged, and also ordered that
in the event of cancellation of aforesaid Sale Deed, its status will
be as that of an unregistered Deed as per Section 49 of the
Registration Act. He also ordered to lodge an F.I.R. against the
said Alimuddin Khan.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, being an executive Officer
is not conferred with any right to cancel a registered Sale Deed.
Even in cases of fraud or forgery, the provisions of Registration
Act do not confer such a power on the Registrar to cancel a
registered instrument. The fact of forgery of documents or
presentation of improper documents cannot be reopened by the
Registering Authority after its registration, save and except for
initiation of a criminal prosecution against the person responsible
for the same. There is no express provision in the Registration
Act, 1908 Act, which empowers the Registering Authority to recall
such registration. A competent Civil Court having jurisdiction only
has a power to declare a registered Deed null and void and has
the power to cancel the same.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal
Anand Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in (2016) 10 SCC
767 , at para-34, while dealing with the power of cancellation of
a Deed and the role of Registering Authority after registration of
the document, has held as hereunder:-
" 34. The role of the Sub-Registrar
(Registration) stands discharged, once the
document is registered. Section 17 of the 1908
4

2026:JHHC:14018
Act deals with documents which require
compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is
one such document referred to in Section
17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with
documents, registration whereof is optional.
Section 20 of the Act deals with documents
containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or
alterations. Section 21 provides for description of
property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals
with the description of houses and land by
reference to government maps and surveys.
There is no express provision in the 1908 Act
which empowers the Registrar after its
registration. The power to cancel the registration
is a substantive matter. In absence of any express
provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume
that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be
competent to cancel the registration of the
documents in question. Similarly, the power of
the Inspector General is limited to do
superintendence of Registration Offices and make
rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General
has no power to cancel the registration of any
document which has already been registered."

8. Further, in a similar matter in W.P.(C) No. 3103 of
2020 and analogous cases titled “Vinod Shankar Jha @
Binod Shankar Jha v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.” (dated
11.01.2024), a Coordinate Bench of this Court set-aside the
impugned Circular, which had conferred power on the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Registrar for cancellation/ annulment of sale
deeds and held that unless there is a declaration by a Civil Court
that a deed is vitiated by fraud, a registered deed cannot be
cancelled by the Registrar. The relevant paragraphs of the said
5

2026:JHHC:14018
judgment are quoted as under:-
“34. What follows from the above settled position
of law, is that an executant can seek cancellation
of a registered instrument on the ground of fraud,
by a suit filed under Section 31 of the Specific
Relief Act. In case, where a stranger without any
title has executed a sale, such a suit will not lie
under Section 31. Real owner may file a suit under
Section 34, if his peaceful enjoyment of
ownership right is impinged due to the said sale.
35. Unless there is a declaration by a civil Court
that a deed is vitiated by fraud, a registered deed
cannot be cancelled by the Registrar.
36. Lastly, I find merit in the plea taken on behalf
of the Petitioners that State cannot by recourse to
Article 162 of the Constitution of India, issue
circular/executive order which is in derogation
with the statutory provisions. The executive
power of the State Government under Article 162
is coextensive with the legislative power of the
State legislature. But, in the absence of any law,
the State or its officers in the exercise of
executive authority, cannot infringe citizen’s
rights merely because legislature has power to
make law on the subject. As discussed above,
registration of an instrument entails legal
consequence affecting the legal rights of a citizen,
and power of cancellation of such document
cannot be permitted by an executive order, as it
will be against the scheme of statutory provisions
as contained in the Registration Act, 1908.
Under the circumstance, this Court is of the
view that Registrar has no power to cancel
registered sale deed and the St ate Government
cannot by an executive order confer such a power
on the Registrar For the reasons as discussed
above, impugned Circular vesting power of
6

2026:JHHC:14018
cancellation on the Registrar is not sustainable in
law and is accordingly set aside, along with the
cases instituted/ notices issued/orders passed
under it along with the consequential order for
institution of F.I.R. Cancellation of sale deeds
otherwise also by the Registrar, which is under
challenge in the writ petitions is also set aside.
Party aggrieved by the said order will have
remedy before the Civil Court.
Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
Interlocutory Application, if any is disposed of.”

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
the dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court,
this Court is of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner has
acted beyond his jurisdiction in cancelling the registered sale
deed. Thus the impugned order dated 12.01.2021 passed in Misc.
Case No.-17/2020-21 (Khaliqur Rehman & Ors. Vs. Alimudin Khan
& Ors.), [Annexure-IV to the writ petition], whereby the
registered Sale Deed executed in favour of petitioner No.1 -
Amina Khatoon, had been cancelled, is hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed . No
order as to costs.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
07th May, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2
AFR


Uploaded on 16.05.2026


7