The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the Registrar cannot cancel a registered deed unless a Civil Court declares that the deed is vitiated by fraud. The Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary noted that “The executive power of the State Government under Article 162 is coextensive with the legislative power of the State legislature,” holding that the State Government could not provide the Registrar such a power through an executive order. However, in the absence of a law, the legislature’s authority to enact legislation on the matter does not grant the State or its officials the right to violate citizens’ rights while exercising executive authority. As was previously mentioned, the act of registering a document has legal implications that impact a citizen’s rights. An executive order cannot allow for the cancellation of such a document because doing so would violate the Registration Act of 1908’s statutory provisions.
The State was represented by AG Rajeev Ranjan and others, while Counsel Nagmani Tiwari and others represented the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar was given authority by a circular issued by the State of Jharkhand to cancel or annul sale deeds. Using this power, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar filed several cases, sent out notices, and issued orders for the petitioners’ cancellation. The petitioners filed a motion with the court asking for these cases and notifications to be quashed. The notification was contested by the writ petitions as a whole, and this served as the basis for the ensuing various actions. All of the petitions highlighted the same issue regarding the Registrar’s ability to cancel registered deeds of conveyances through an executive order, even though some petitioners contested the legitimacy of the cancellation orders or other processes without contesting the notification itself.
Whether the Registrar might cancel a registered instrument—in this case, a registered sale deed—by executive order was the main question of law. The contested notification made it clear that the Registrar might use this authority when providing falsified documents to secure the execution of a deed of conveyance. After conducting a thorough investigation, the Registrar could also use this authority if the document was signed by a fraudster. The High Court stated that although fraudulent registration is becoming a bigger problem, the simple right to object does not give authority to “clothe an executive order with legality, as the said order gives power to deprive citizens of their valuable legal right of property.”
The Court additionally found that a quasi-judicial order cannot be revoked under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, even in cases where a party has accumulated an indefeasible right. “Title of the executant in the property is transferred from the date the sale deed is registered, provided the executant had a title in the property,” it was further stated in that regard. Section 21 alone cannot be used to revoke an unalienable legal right arising from registered document without a statutory justification.” As a result, the contested circular was annulled and the petitions were granted.