# Kamlesh Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 14892 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arindam Sinha, Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54606
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Documents - Challenging Official Act of
Sub-Registrar - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 34 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -
Section 22 - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4
- Rules/Regulations - Rule 285 in UP
Registration Manual - Duty of Registering
Officer - Jurisdiction of High Court under
Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction not to be
exercised to usurp that of the civil Court -
Petitioner must find his remedy in the civil
court - For a party to challenge the official
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
act of the registering authority, there
must be reliance on the documents
presented for registration. (Para - 10,11)

Petitioner, co-sharer in inherited property -
challenged the Sub-Registrar's act of registering
a sale deed executed by his cousins through a
power of attorney - arguing the Sub-Registrar
failed to perform his statutory duty under
Section 34 of the Registration Act - breach of
preferential right under Section 22 Hindu
Succession Act. (Para - 1, 2, 7)

HELD: - Writ petition was not maintainable as
the underlying controversy between the parties
was civil in nature. Petitioner must seek his
remedy in a civil court and refused to exercise
its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the official
act of the Sub-Registrar. (Para - 10 to 12)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1505
 "7. ... The period of limitation
statutorily prescribed has to be strictly
adhered to and cannot be relaxed or
departed
from
for
equitable
considerations." '..."

 (emphasis in original and
supplied)"

8. Furthermore, the Supreme Court,
in paragraph 118 of the judgment in
Shanmugavelu (supra), after discussing the
various Supreme Court judgments, held as
follows:

 "118. Thus, this Court held that
where extraneous conditions exist that
might have led to the inability of the
successful auction-purchaser despite best
efforts from depositing the balance amount
to no fault of its own, in such cases the
earnest money deposited by such innocent
successful
auction-purchaser
could
certainly be asked to be refunded."

9. Upon perusal of the above
paragraphs of the judgment, it is crystal
clear that the present case wherein the
petitioner is seeking refund of the forfeited
amount on the ground of re-initiation of the
SARFAESI action by the bank upon the
borrower, would not come within the
contours of an 'exceptional circumstance',
leading
to
dilution of
the
statutory
consequence of forfeiture under Rule 9(5)
of the 2002 Rules. As is clear from the
factual matrix, the petitioner has not
indicated any extenuating circumstances
that resulted in failure on the part of the
petitioner to deposit the balance amount
within the prescribed time. Accordingly,
there is no question of any equity in his
favour. The subsequent actions of the Bank
in re-initiating the SARFAESI action
cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner
in any manner whatsoever, as forfeiture is a
statutory consequence under the 2002
Rules.

10. In light of the same, in spite of
the eloquence and incisive points raised by
Mr. Rahul Agarwal, counsel appearing for
the petitioner, we are of the view that these
arguments are only in the nature of
sophistry, and hence, have to be out rightly
rejected by this Court.

11. Ergo, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Writ C No. 14892 of 2025

Kamlesh Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Registration of
Documents - Challenging Official Act of
Sub-Registrar - Registration Act, 1908 -
Section 34 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -
Section 22 - Partition Act, 1893 - Section 4
- Rules/Regulations - Rule 285 in UP
Registration Manual - Duty of Registering
Officer - Jurisdiction of High Court under
Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction not to be
exercised to usurp that of the civil Court -
Petitioner must find his remedy in the civil
court - For a party to challenge the official
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
act of the registering authority, there
must be reliance on the documents
presented for registration. (Para - 10,11)

Petitioner, co-sharer in inherited property -
challenged the Sub-Registrar's act of registering
a sale deed executed by his cousins through a
power of attorney - arguing the Sub-Registrar
failed to perform his statutory duty under
Section 34 of the Registration Act - breach of
preferential right under Section 22 Hindu
Succession Act. (Para - 1, 2, 7)

HELD: - Writ petition was not maintainable as
the underlying controversy between the parties
was civil in nature. Petitioner must seek his
remedy in a civil court and refused to exercise
its writ jurisdiction to interfere with the official
act of the Sub-Registrar. (Para - 10 to 12)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. Vs
S.P. Velayutham & ors., Civil Appeal nos. 27522753 of 2022

2. Jugraj Singh Vs Jaswant Singh, (1970) 2 SCC 386

3. K. Gopi Vs the Sub-Registrar & ors., Civil
Appeal no.3954 of 2025

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arindam Sinha, J.
&
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. Mr. Shreyas Srivastava, learned
advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and
submits, his client inherited half share in the
property. Respondent nos.3 to 5 are his
cousins and respondent no.6, purported
purchaser of almost their entire aggregate half
share. He relies on section 22 in Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and submits, his client
has preferential right to acquire the property,
when his cousins decide to sell their shares.

2. Challenge in the writ petition is
against
respondent
no.2,
(the
SubRegistrar), in having illegally registered the
sale deed dated 2nd April, 2025. He draws
attention to the deed and submits, vendors
described therein were represented by
respondent no.3. Though there is mention
of power of attorney dated 17th October,
2024, the Sub-Registrar abdicated his duty
mandated by sub-section (3) in section 34
of Registration Act, 1908 in not refusing
registration. He relies on clause (c) in the
sub-section. The sale deed does not bear
signature of the other vendors. The SubRegistrar thus, as appears on face of the
document, did not satisfy himself that the
executor appearing as representative of
respondent nos.4 and 5, had the right to so
appear and present the document for
registration. He also relies on rule 285 in
Uttar Pradesh Registration Manual. Section
34 and the rule are reproduced below.

 Section 34 in Registration Act,
1908.

 "34. Enquiry before registration
by registering officer.

 (1) Subject to the provisions
contained in this Part and in sections 41,
43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document
shall be registered under this Act, unless
the persons executing such document, or
their representatives, assigns or agents
authorised as aforesaid, appear before the
registering officer within the time allowed
for presentation under sections 23, 24, 25
and 26:

 Provided that, if owing to urgent
necessity or unavoidable accident all such
persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in
cases where the delay in appearing does
not exceed four months, may direct that on
payment of a fine not exceeding ten times
the amount of the proper registration fee,
5 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1507
in addition to the fine, if any, payable
under section 25, the document may be
registered.

 (2)
Appearances
under
subsection (1) may be simultaneous or at
different times.

 (3) The registering officer shall
thereupon

 (a) enquire whether or not
such document was executed by the
persons by whom it purports to have
been executed;
 (b) satisfy himself as to the
identity of the persons appearing before
him and alleging that they have executed
the document; and

 (c) in the case of any person
appearing as a representative, assign or
agent, satisfy himself of the right of such
person so to appear.

 (4)
Any
application
for
a
direction under the proviso to sub-section
(1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar,
who shall forthwith forward it to the
Registrar to whom he is subordinate.

 (5) Nothing in this section applies
to copies of decrees or orders."

 Rule 285 in UP Registration
Manual.

 "285.
Examination
of
documents. When a document is presented
for registration the points requiring the
attention of the registering officer may be
summarized as follows:

 1. Whether he has jurisdiction to
register the document?
 2. Whether the document is timebarred?

 3. Whether the document is free
from the objections in Section 19, 20 and
21 ?

 4. Whether the document is
properly stamped?

 5. Whether the document is
presented by a proper person?

 6. Whether the document was
executed by the persons by whom it
purports to have been executed ?"

 (Emphasis supplied)

3.
On
query
Mr.
Srivastava
submits, cancellation of the registration is
not same as declaring the document to be
null and void. His client is challenging
administrative act of the authority in not
having duly exercised the same, on
omission to make enquiry in respect of it
under section 34, to register the document,
which ought not to have been registered.
He relies on judgment of the Supreme
Court in Asset Reconstruction Company
(India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and
Others dealt with on judgment dated 4th
May, 2022 (Civil Appeal nos. 2752-2753
of 2022), paragraph 53 in Live Law print.
The paragraph is reproduced below.

 "53. In suits for declaration of
title and/or suits for declaration that a
registered document is null and void, all
the aforesaid three steps which comprise
the entire process of execution and
registration come under challenge. If a
party questions the very execution of a
document or the right and title of a person
to execute a document and present it for
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registration, his remedy will only be to go
to the civil court. But where a party
questions only the failure of the Registering
Authority to perform his statutory duties in
the course of the third step, it cannot be
said that the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 stands completely ousted.
This is for the reason that the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court is to ensure
that statutory authorities perform their
duties within the bounds of law. It must be
noted that when a High Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 finds
that there was utter failure on the part of
the Registering Authority to stick to the
mandate of law, the Court merely cancels
the act of registration, but does not declare
the very execution of the document to be
null and void. A declaration that a
document is null and void, is exclusively
within the domain of the civil court, but it
does not mean that the High Court cannot
examine the question whether or not the
Registering
Authority
performed
his
statutory duties in the manner prescribed
by law. It is well settled that if something is
required by law to be done in a particular
manner, it shall be done only in that
manner and not otherwise. Examining
whether the Registering Authority did
something in the manner required by law
or otherwise, is certainly within the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226. However, it is needless to say that the
High Courts may refuse to exercise
Jurisdiction in cases where the violations
of procedure on the part of the Registering
Authority are not gross or the violations do
not shock the conscience of the Court. Lack
of jurisdiction is completely different from
a refusal to exercise jurisdiction."

 He follows up by relying on an
earlier judgment of said Court in Jugraj
Singh vs. Jaswant Singh reported in
(1970)
2
SCC
386,
paragraph
7,
reproduced below.

 "7. It is plain that presentation
for registration could be, either by the
Principal or by a duly constituted attorney.
It is equally plain that a proper power of
attorney duly authenticated as required by
law had to be made before power could be
conferred on another either to execute the
document or to present it for registration.
That indeed is the law."

4. Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned
advocate,
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel appears on behalf of State. He
relies on judgment dated 7th April, 2025
of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
no.3954 of 2025 (K. Gopi vs. the SubRegistrar and Others) paragraphs 11 - 15,
to oppose the writ petition. Said paragraphs
are reproduced below.

 "11. None of Clauses (a) to (j)
provides for framing Rules conferring
power on the registering authority to refuse
registration of a document of transfer. No
provision under the 1908 Act confers
power
on
any
authority
to
refuse
registration of a transfer document on the
ground that the documents regarding the
title of the vendor are not produced, or if
his title is not established. Even Sections
22-A and 22-B, incorporated by way of
State amendment, do not have such a
provision.

 ?

 15. The registering officer is not
concerned with the title held by the
executant. He has no adjudicatory power to
decide whether the executant has any title.
Even if an executant executes a sale deed
or a lease in respect of a land in respect of
5 All. Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1509
which he has no title, the registering officer
cannot refuse to register the document if all
the procedural compliances are made and
the necessary stamp duty as well as
registration charges/fee are paid. We may
note here that under the scheme of the 1908
Act, it is not the function of the SubRegistrar or Registering Authority to
ascertain whether the vendor has title to
the property which he is seeking to
transfer. Once the registering authority is
satisfied that the parties to the document
are present before him and the parties
admit execution thereof before him, subject
to making procedural compliances as
narrated above, the document must be
registered. The execution and registration
of
a
document
have
the
effect
of
transferring only those rights, if any, that
the executant possesses. If the executant
has no right, title, or interest in the
property, the registered document cannot
effect any transfer."

5. Petitioner is up against an
official act of respondent no.2. State
opposes.
Section
86
provides,
no
registering officer shall be liable to any
suit, claim or demand by reason of
anything in good faith done or refused in
his official capacity. It is on this premise,
we must proceed to deal with petitioner's
challenge.

6. We have perused the document
(sale deed dated 2nd April, 2025). It does
mention that the vendors were represented
by one of them and a power of attorney. On
query Mr. Srivastava submits, the power of
attorney has not been disclosed. Petitioner
ought to have obtained inspection of the
power of attorney, to first ascertain on the
document's validity. There cannot be a
presumption that respondent no.2 did not
duly inquire regarding respondent no.3
executing the document, on behalf of
respondent nos.4 and 5 and himself. There
is nothing in section 34 that requires the
registering authority to make an order
regarding satisfaction, as opposed to
section 76, mandating the authority to make
an order of refusal, recording the reasons
for such order. The Act provides for appeal
from an order of refusal. It does not carry
provision for impeaching a registration
made. There is indication thereby of
intention of the Legislature.

7.
Petitioner
says
he
is
in
possession of the entire property, it having
devolved upon him and his cousins. Hence,
there is reliance on section 22 of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. His co-sharers not
having informed him of their intention to
sell thus deprived him of exercising his
right of pre-emption under the provision.
This alleged omission on part of his cousins
gives petitioner cause to sue them. It cannot
come
in
aid
of
challenge
to
an
administrative
act
of
registering
a
document, executed by one of them on
behalf of all. We, in taking this view are
supported by K. Gopi (supra).

8.
On
query
Mr.
Srivastava
submits, section 4 in Partition Act, 1893
does not provide for the relief his client is
seeking. We think otherwise. Private
respondent no.6 is purchaser of almost 50%
share in the property. In event said
respondent files suit for partition, petitioner
can claim under section 4, to purchase his
share in resisting the claim for possession.

9.
Jugraj
Singh
(supra)
is
declaration of law that there must be a
proper
power
of
attorney,
duly
authenticated as required by law as had to
be made before the power could be
conferred on another, either to execute the
1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
document or to present it for registration.
We do not have the power of attorney
before us. Petitioner has not been able to
even allege that his cousins or any one of
them have raised some dispute regarding
dealing with their shares on the sale deed,
as could not be done in exercise of the
power. As such we presume that the
official act of the Sub-Registrar
in
registering the document (sale deed) was
pursuant to satisfaction obtained that the
power of attorney produced was a good and
valid one, to enable respondent no.3 to also
deal with the shares of respondent nos. 4
and 5. Clearly, Jugraj Singh (supra) is not
applicable.

10. In S.P. Velayutham (supra) the
Supreme Court said that where a party
questions only the failure of the registering
authority to perform his statutory duties in the
course of third step i.e. failure of the
registering authority to perform his statutory
duty, the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere
under article 226 in the Constitution of India
cannot be said to stand completely ousted. The
declaration has to be read like a demurrer. For
a party to challenge the act of the registering
authority, he must accept, inter alia, statements
in the power of attorney empowering the
person(s), to execute and present the document
for registration since he is only challenging the
discharge of statutory duty of the registering
authority. In that case there was a sale made by
the constituent attorney on strength of a power
of attorney that specifically excluded power to
sell. In such facts the Supreme Court said,
action of the authority was amenable to writ
jurisdiction. It reinforces our view that, to
challenge the official act there must be reliance
on the documents presented for registration.
As aforesaid, petitioner has not even taken
inspection of the power of attorney. Here,
petitioner disputes the power of attorney and
he is seeking to render the compulsorily
registerable sale deed, on the registration, if
cancelled, to be a document of little or no
consequence. We will not, in this way exercise
our writ jurisdiction to usurp that of the civil
Court. It follows, S.P. Velayutham (supra)
does not come to aid of petitioner.

11.
We
see
the
underlying
controversy between petitioner and unnoticed
private respondents to be civil in nature.
Petitioner must find his remedy. As
aforesaid, we will not be drawn into exercising
our writ jurisdiction.

12. The writ petition is disposed
of.

13. Registry will communicate
website copy of this order to respondent
nos. 3 and 6 as we have not noticed them in
dealing with the writ petition.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1510
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 31912 of 2018

C/M Janhit Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr.
 ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972
-
Inclusion
in
Grant-in-Aid
List
-
Government Order dated 07.09.2006 -
Government Order dated 14.07.2020 -