Pending consolidation proceedings cannot indefinitely bar sale deed registration if purchasers undertake to be bound by the outcome.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the registration of a sale deed can be indefinitely withheld solely due to the pendency of consolidation proceedings or the lack of an NOC/sanction under Section 30 of the EPH Act

The court held

The court allowed the petition and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed dated 21st January, 2026, in a time-bound manner

It also directed

The holding clarified that registration cannot be refused solely due to pending consolidation or lack of an NOC

The court ordered that: (i) the petitioner’s undertaking to be bound by consolidation outcomes be taken on record; (ii) the undertaking must form part of the sale deed; and (iii) the registration remains subject to land acquisition verification, the rights of third parties, and the final orders in Cont.Cas(C) 1725/2024

01Facts

The petitioner sought a direction to Respondent No. 2 (Sub-Registrar, Libaspur) to register a sale deed dated 21st January, 2026, for land situated in the revenue estate of Village Singhola

pp. 1-2

The registration was kept pending by the authorities due to ongoing consolidation proceedings in the village and the non-availability of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) or Land Status Report (LSR) from the Consolidation Officer

p. 2

The respondents contended that according to a Circular dated 14th August, 2025, sanction under Section 30 of the EPH Act is required where consolidation is active, and further noted that proceedings are subject to the outcome of a pending contempt petition

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the registration of a sale deed can be indefinitely withheld solely due to the pendency of consolidation proceedings or the lack of an NOC/sanction under Section 30 of the EPH Act

pp. 2-3

ii.2. Whether substantial compliance with Section 30 of the EPH Act can be achieved by binding the purchaser to the eventual outcome of the consolidation proceedings

pp. 1-2

03Law Applied

Section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ("EPH Act"), which restricts land transfers during consolidation to prevent fragmentation

pp. 1-2

Precedent established in Okaya Infocom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [W.P.(C) 12122/2021], which held that the objective of the Act is met if the purchaser remains bound by the consolidation outcome

pp. 1-2

Principle from Smt. Payal Bansal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [W.P.(C) 6422/2026], which prohibited the indefinite withholding of registration based on the prolonged nature of consolidation proceedings

pp. 2-3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that since consolidation proceedings are often prolonged, preventing the transfer of land indefinitely causes undue hardship to allottees.

pp. 2-3

Following the ratio in Okaya Infocom, the court determined that the statutory intent of Section 30 of the EPH Act is preserved if the transferee (purchaser) submits an undertaking to be bound by the final results of the consolidation

pp. 2-3

By requiring this undertaking to be incorporated into the sale deed itself, the court ensured that subsequent transferees are notified of the legal status

p. 3

The court balanced the state’s interest in consolidation with the petitioner’s right to transfer property, provided the registration remains subject to the verification of acquisition status and the orders of the pending contempt petition (Cont.Cas(C) 1725/2024)

pp. 3-4