District Commissioner Cannot Cancel Registered Sale Deed; Challenge Lies Before Civil Court, Gauhati High Court Rules

The petitioner No. 1 owned three kathas of land covered by Dag No. 2920, K.P. Patta No. 1362, at Barsajai, Mouza Beltola, Dispur Revenue Circle, Kamrup (M).

She permitted her son, petitioner No. 2, to construct an RCC building on the land pursuant to GMDA building permission/NOC.

A sale deed was subsequently executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 and registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Guwahati, on 16 September 2022; the judgment refers to the instrument as Sale Deed No. 21429, although paragraph 2 mentions Sale Deed No. 26169.

Mutation was granted in favour of petitioner No. 2 on 10 November 2022.

Following an online objection raised by the granddaughter of petitioner No. 1, the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M), by order dated 27 August 2024, declared the registered sale deed legally unsustainable and cancelled the mutation.

The petitioners’ review application was dismissed on 17 December 2024, principally on the ground that the requisite NOC for transfer of the land had not been obtained from the competent authority.

The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel a registered sale deed.

Whether the District Commissioner could cancel or declare invalid a sale deed after it had been duly executed and registered under the Registration Act, 1908, on the ground of non-compliance with an alleged NOC requirement?

Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, conferred power upon the District Commissioner/Registering Authority to rescind or cancel the registration of a registered sale deed?

Whether the validity, execution, title, or legality of the registered sale deed could be adjudicated by the revenue authorities rather than by a competent civil court?

The Court applied Sections 17, 32, 34, 35 and 36 of the Registration Act, 1908, which govern compulsory registration, presentation of documents, and the registering officer’s enquiry into execution and identity.

The Court also referred to Section 83 of the Act, which permits criminal prosecution for false statements, false copies and personation but does not authorise cancellation of an already registered document.

The Court also referred to Section 48 of the Registration Act regarding the effect of registration upon transfer of title.

The settled rule from Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 10 SCC 767, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210, and Veena Singh (Dead) through LRs v. District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R), (2022) 7 SCC 1, is that a registering authority has no power to cancel or recall a document after registration; challenges to execution, title, fraud, coercion or validity must ordinarily be brought before a competent civil court.

Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, permit rescission of notifications, orders, rules or similar administrative instruments only within the scope of the enabling statute and do not authorise annulment of a quasi-judicial or completed registration resulting in accrued rights.

The Court distinguished Atowar Rahman v. State of Assam, where cancellation of a certificate of registration under the Societies Registration Act was upheld as cancellation of an administrative “order,” not cancellation of a registered conveyance.

The Court held that registration involves execution of the document, presentation and admission of execution, and the formal act of registration; the registering officer’s role is primarily administrative and does not extend to adjudicating title or the ultimate validity of the transaction.

Once the sale deed was registered, rights and title in the property accrued to petitioner No. 2, and the registering authority became functus officio.

Even assuming that the sale deed was registered without the requisite GMDA or District Commissioner NOC, that issue could not confer a post-registration power of cancellation upon the District Commissioner.

The Court further rejected reliance on the General Clauses Acts because Section 21/Section 23 concerns rescission of notifications, orders, rules or by-laws, whereas registration of a sale deed under the Registration Act does not involve the making of an order capable of being rescinded in that manner.

Unlike the certificate of registration considered in Atowar Rahman, a sale deed is a conveyance creating proprietary rights, and those rights cannot be extinguished administratively without express statutory authority.

Any dispute regarding fraud, title, execution, NOC compliance or invalidity had to be adjudicated through appropriate civil proceedings.

It held that the District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel or declare invalid the duly registered sale deed, and that neither the Registration Act, 1908, nor Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897/Section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act, 1915, authorised such cancellation.

The orders dated 27 August 2024 and 17 December 2024 were accordingly set aside and quashed.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.