Registration authorities must reconsider rectification requests after examining relevant records and claims.

The petitioner purchased 1,159 sq. ft. in Survey No. 154/2B under a registered sale deed dated 3 May 2021.

The Sub-Registrar returned the petitioner’s rectification deed, stating that the land in Survey No. 154/2B had been conveyed through persons who lacked title.

The petitioner alleged that Gift Deed No. 498 of 1982, executed in favour of Kathija Beevi, mistakenly referred to Survey No. 154/2B, although it concerned other survey fields.

He relied on UDR entries said to record Kathija Beevi’s name in other fields, while the petitioner’s asserted chain of title to Survey No. 154/2B ran through separate conveyances.

He challenged the refusal by writ petition under Article 226.

1. Whether the refusal to accept the rectification deed should stand where the petitioner alleged that Survey No. 154/2B was mistakenly included in the 1982 Gift Deed and the available records required examination.

2. Whether the Sub-Registrar should verify the relevant records and reconsider the rectification deed, including by seeking information from Kathija Beevi.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied no specific statutory provision or precedent in its reasoning.

It directed the registration authority to verify the relevant documents and materials and reconsider the request in accordance with law; the order did not determine title to the land or establish that the survey-number reference was erroneous.

The Court observed that the UDR entries prima facie supported the petitioner’s account that the conveyances in his chain related to Survey No. 154/2B, while Kathija Beevi’s name appeared in respect of other survey fields and not Survey No. 154/2B.

Because the records required examination to determine whether the properties were distinct and whether the reference in the Gift Deed was an error, the Court considered a survey and verification of the relevant materials necessary before the rectification request could be decided.

It directed the Sub-Registrar to verify the relevant records and materials, reconsider the rectification deed, and, if necessary, obtain information from Kathija Beevi before passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.