Registrar lacks jurisdiction to cancel a registered sale deed without providing the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioners, a partnership firm and others, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the District Registrar cum Collector, Valsad (Respondent No. 1).

By the impugned order, Respondent No. 1 cancelled a registered sale deed dated 11.08.2023.

The petitioners contended that the document was registered in 2023 and a subsequent Rectification Deed was executed on 07.10.2023 to correct certain errors.

Two years later, the authority raised objections and cancelled the original sale deed without providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard or considering the merits of the Rectification Deed.

1. Whether the District Registrar cum Collector, while exercising powers under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, can cancel a registered sale deed without adhering to the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the impugned order of cancellation was legally sustainable given the failure to consider the subsequent Rectification Deed and the lack of a hearing.

Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, which defines the powers of the Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars.

Gujarat Registration Rules, 1970.

Constitutional principle of Audi Alteram Partem (the right to be heard) under Article 14 and 226, which mandates that administrative or quasi-judicial orders affecting civil rights must be passed after providing a fair opportunity to the aggrieved party.

The court observed that Respondent No. 1 exercised jurisdiction under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act to cancel the registered sale deed.

the court found that this power was exercised in a vacuum of procedural fairness. Specifically, the authority failed to take cognizance of the Rectification Deed executed in October 2023 and ignored the factual history of the document.

The court reasoned that the failure to grant the petitioners a hearing constituted a significant violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order arbitrary and "bad in the eye of law".

Consequently, the court determined that the matter required a fresh adjudication where the petitioners' contentions could be formally examined.

The matter was remanded to Respondent No. 1 for a fresh decision. The respondent was directed to hear the petitioners, consider all legal contentions including the effect of the Rectification Deed, and decide the matter in a time-bound manner, preferably within four months. Rule was made absolute.