Sub-Registrar Must Adjudicate Pending Sale Deeds Despite Omissions of Improvements Not Belonging to the Vendor

The petitioner (vendee) sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel respondent No. 2 (Sub-Registrar, Awantipora) to register a sale deed for 04 Kanals of land.

The land belongs to respondent No. 3, a Kashmiri migrant, who obtained sale permission from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, on 07.08.2025 under the Migrant Act.

The petitioner claimed she constructed a residential structure on the land in "good faith" after executing an agreement to sell in 2024 but before the formal sale deed was registered.

The Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed, contending that the structure was not mentioned in the official sale permission and required the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the structure's value.

The document remained pending for seven months without a formal decision.

1. Whether a Sub-Registrar can indefinitely delay the registration of a sale deed without passing a formal order according to law.

2. Whether a structure raised by a vendee in good faith on migrant land, which is not reflected in the official sale permission, precludes the registration of the sale deed for the underlying land.

Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, which mandates prior permission from the Divisional Commissioner for the alienation of migrant property.

General principles of the Registration Act and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, establishing that a registering authority must address documents presented for registration in accordance with the law rather than keeping them pending indefinitely.

The Court observed that the Sub-Registrar’s inaction for seven months left the parties "remediless," noting that while the official had valid "facto-legal" queries, he was legally obligated to pass an order rather than sleep over the matter.

The Court reasoned that if the structure was indeed constructed by the petitioner (vendee) or her attorney-holder father, it should not be a subject of the sale deed between the migrant vendor and the vendee, as the vendor is only selling the land.

The Court found that the omission of the structure in the revenue reports likely stemmed from either concealment by field agencies or construction post-reporting.

The Court determined that the Sub-Registrar has the competence to verify if the structure belongs to the vendee; if so, the land deed can be registered with a specific "note" regarding the structure's origin to satisfy legal requirements.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No. 2 (Sub-Registrar) to address and decide upon the pending sale deed in accordance with the law within the framework of the Court's observations.