Madras HC Says Registrar Can’t Refuse Buyers’ Sale Deeds To Recover Vendor’s Alleged ₹5.71-Crore Power-Theft Dues

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration of the sale deeds on the ground that the petitioners had not paid electricity dues attributed to their vendor.

The court held

The Court set aside the communication dated 28 July 2026.

It also directed

The petitioners may re-present the deeds if they have been returned; if the deeds remain pending, the Sub-Registrar must consider them and proceed with registration if otherwise lawful.

Any further refusal must be made by a reasoned refusal order.

The exercise was directed to be completed within three weeks of uploading the web copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the Sub-Registrar’s communication dated 28 July 2026 refusing to register their sale deeds, Document Nos. P14 to P16 of 2025, unless they paid ₹5,71,21,863 in alleged electricity-theft dues attributed to their vendor, M/s. A.R. Metalargicals Limited.

p. 2

The deeds had been presented on 23 May 2025, and an earlier refusal was set aside in W.P. No. 46373 of 2025; the Sub-Registrar was directed to reconsider the deeds after notice and a hearing.

pp. 2–3

The petitioners maintained that no attachment over the property had been communicated and that the registration authority could not make registration conditional on payment of the vendor’s electricity dues.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration of the sale deeds on the ground that the petitioners had not paid electricity dues attributed to their vendor.

pp. 2–5

ii.2. Whether, absent a statutory provision authorising recovery of those dues through the registration process, the Sub-Registrar could require payment as a condition of registration.

p. 5

03Law Applied

Under Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hanuman Rice Mills, Dhanauri, (2010) 9 SCC 145, electricity arrears do not ordinarily constitute a charge over the property, and a transferee is not generally liable for a previous owner’s or occupier’s dues; recovery from a purchaser may be permitted where statutory rules or statutory terms of supply authorise it.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on the prior order in W.P. No. 46373 of 2025, which required notice and an opportunity of hearing before reconsidering the registration refusal.

pp. 2–3

A registering authority cannot recover alleged electricity dues without statutory authority.

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Sub-Registrar again refused registration based on the vendor’s alleged electricity dues, but the judgment identified no statutory provision empowering the registering authority to recover those dues or condition registration on their payment.

pp. 3–5

Applying the rule in Hanuman Rice Mills, the Court held that the alleged arrears could not, by themselves, justify the refusal.

p. 5

It therefore set aside the communication while leaving the Sub-Registrar to consider whether the deeds were otherwise in order and in accordance with law; the Court expressed no view on the merits of either party’s claims or objections.

p. 5

05Holding

The Court set aside the communication dated 28 July 2026.

p. 5

The petitioners may re-present the deeds if they have been returned; if the deeds remain pending, the Sub-Registrar must consider them and proceed with registration if otherwise lawful.

p. 5

Any further refusal must be made by a reasoned refusal order.

p. 5

The exercise was directed to be completed within three weeks of uploading the web copy of the order.

p. 5

No costs were awarded.

p. 6

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF