Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 31 October, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:191446-DB
AFR Judgement Reserved On:- 14.10.2025 Judgement Delivered On:- 31.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 49206 of 2016
Manoj Kumar And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vidya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anurag Upadhyaya, C.S.C., Rajiv Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
Per:- Hon'ble Vivek Saran,J.
1. Heard Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-
" i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.4.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 3 of 2015-16 (Prem Lata and another vs. Manoj Kumar and others) (Annexure No. 11) to this writ petition and the order dated 17.6.2016 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 3 of 2015-16 (Prem Lata and another vs. Manoj Kumar and others) (Annexure No. 13 to this writ petition).
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order No. Ka. Ni-7-684/11-2013-700 (446)/2013 dated 13.8.2013 issued by respondent no. 2 declaring it null and void."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Sri Vinod Kumar power of attorney holder of Smt. Premlata, the recorded tenure holder, executed sale deeds dated 16.1.2015 in favour of the petitioners and by which properties situated at Khasra No. 1176 was sold.
4. Subsequently, one Brahmdev Tyagi alleging himself to be having power of attorney from said Smt. Premlata lodged first information report and after investigation, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet and thereafter he made a complaint dated 26.10.2015 to the Assistant Registrar Registration, Ghaziabad praying for cancellation of the registered sale deeds.
5. On the said application, an order dated 8.4.2016 was passed by the respondent no.3/Additional Commissioner (Stamp), Ghaziabad by which the registered sale deeds dated 16.1.2015 executed in favour of the petitioners were declared cancelled.
6. The petitioners moved an application before the respondent no. 3 on 10.6.2016 praying for recall of the order dated 8.4.2016 stating the same to be an ex-parte order. This application was rejected vide order dated 17.6.2016 by the respondent no. 3.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the aforesaid contended that the orders impugned are illegal and have been passed without any jurisdiction since the sale deeds had already been registered and thus, respondent no. 3 has become functus oficio. It is also contended that even the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 by virtue of which the respondent no. 3 has exercised his power to cancel the registered sale deed is bad in law.
8. Reliance has been placed on the Full Bench judgement of this Court passed in the Smt. Kusum Lata vs. State of U.P. and three others, reported in 2018 (6)ADJ 344, the relevant paragraphs of the judgement are as follows:- "(1) - This Larger Bench has been constituted under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on basis of the order dated 22.05.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 2973 of 2016. In the case aforesaid, a Division Bench of this Court arrived at the conclusion that the view taken in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora Versus State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ-C No. 63439 of 2013), decided on 20.11.2013 is in conflict with a view taken in Raj Kumari Versus State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 2562 of 2014), decided on 28.03.2014 and looking to the divergent views taken by two Division Benches matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench. The Division Bench under the order dated 22.05.2017 referred following questions for adjudication by Larger Bench:-
"(a). Whether after a sale deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made?
(b). Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent civil court?
(c). Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?......."
"(10)- The reference is answered in the terms that a sale deed registered under the Act, 1908 cannot be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/ fraud."
9. Further reliance has been placed on judgement dated 2.12.2019 passed in Misc. Bench No. 5742 of 2017, Smt Asha Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Regn. Deptt. & Ors. The relevant extract is as follows:-
"For the foregoing reasons, the Government Order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure No. 2) issued by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 14.12.2016 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2 in the Case no. 6/2012 (Sri Dharmendar Singh Vs. Smt. Asha Singh and others) are set aside."
10. This Court in Krishna Kumar Saxena and another vs. State of U.P. and 9 others, reported in 2018(5) ADJ 156 has quashed the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 holding that it was not only arbitrary but was wholly without jurisdiction. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below:-
"(30)- The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 confers unfettered and arbitrary powers upon the Registering Authority in violation of the express provisions of the Registration Act and such Government Order cannot be invoked to annual a document. The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 is not only arbitrary but is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.
(33)- In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the respondent nos. 4 to 10 had no locus standi to question the veracity of the sale deed. No enquiry could have been initiated nor the authority could have annulled the document. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 23.9.2016 and 18.10.2016 passed by Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The Government Order dated 13.8.2013 is also quashed."
11. Learned counsel representing the State and the private respondent could not dispute the legal position however submitted that since the orders impugned have been passed during the subsistence of the Government Order dated 13.8.2013, therefore, no interference is required.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. This Court is of the considered opinion that as the sale deeds have been registered on 16.1.2025, which is prior to the complaint made by Brahmdev Tyagi and, as such, as per the law laid down in Smt. Kushum Lata (Supra), the order dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) cancelling the Registered Sale deeds 16.01.2015 executed in favour of the petitioners as well as the order dated 17.06.2016 rejecting the recall application to recall the order dated 08.04.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 cannot be sustained and as such the same are hereby quashed.
14. Since this Court in Smt. Krishna Saxena (Supra) has already quashed the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 as such no further orders are required to be passed with regard to the second prayer made by the petitioners.
15. The writ petition stands allowed.
16. No order as to costs.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
October 31, 2025
Sushma
