Non-issuance of E-Khata cannot be used as an administrative ground to frustrate execution of specific performance decrees.

The Petitioner (decree-holder) obtained a decree for specific performance in OS No. 138/2018 on 06.04.2021.

Upon the judgment-debtors’ failure to comply, the Executing Court in Ex. No. 81/2021 appointed a Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed.

The District Registrar (Respondent No. 1) issued an endorsement dated 28.08.2025 refusing to register the sale deed because of the absence of an "E-khata" (electronic property record).

The Petitioner challenged this endorsement, arguing that the administrative requirement of an E-khata was being used to frustrate a judicial decree.

1. Whether the registering authorities can decline the registration of a sale deed executed via a Court Commissioner on the grounds of non-production of an E-khata.

2. Whether the local municipal authorities are obligated to facilitate the issuance of an E-khata to give effect to a court decree for specific performance.

The Court applied the fundamental principle that a decree for specific performance is a command enforceable in law and not a mere declaration of rights.

It emphasized the duty of executive authorities to act in aid of judicial orders under the "Rule of Law".

The court derived its authority from Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to bridge administrative "grey areas" and ensure the enforceability of civil decrees.

It further clarified that procedural requirements under the Registration Act, 1908, must be interpreted facilitatively when the execution involves a Court Commissioner.

The Court observed that judgment-debtors often deliberately abstain from obtaining E-khatas to frustrate decrees, leaving successful litigants remediless.

It held that the executive machinery’s "hyper-technical or pedantic approach" in insisting on an E-khata—while refusing to issue one to anyone but the original owner—created a procedural deadlock that rendered judicial decrees "mere paper decrees".

To resolve this, the Court reasoned that municipal bodies have a facilitative obligation to issue E-khatas either in the name of the judgment-debtor or the Court Commissioner for the limited purpose of registration.

Furthermore, the Court determined that decree-holders must be permitted to pay outstanding property taxes to satisfy E-khata prerequisites, with the right to recover such sums from the judgment-debtor later.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned endorsement.

It issued a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to issue the E-khata within two weeks upon application by the Petitioner or Court Commissioner.

Detailed guidelines were formulated to ensure that in all such cases, local authorities must quantify dues, accept payment from decree-holders, and process E-khatas to ensure the valid conveyance of property as ordered by the civil court.