Chattisgarh High Court
K.P.Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:15643
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 762 of 2019
1 - K.P. Verma S/o Late Shri D.P. Verma Aged About 60 Years Deputy
Registrar, Gharghoda, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
Commercial Tax (Registration) Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Inspector General Of Registration And Superitendence Of Stamps
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Udit Khatri, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.
(Single Bench)
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
06/04/2026 :
1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has questioned the
Digitally
signed by
KRISHNA
KRISHNA KUMAR
KUMAR BARVE
BARVE Date:
2026.04.08
18:48:03
+0530
2legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated
18.5.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, by
which the State has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the
petitioner affirming the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the
Inspector General, Registration imposing penalty of stoppage of 3
increments with cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner herein was duly appointed as Sub-Registrar under
Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act, 1908’).
On 21.2.1994, while discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar, he
allowed registration of two sale deeds, one by Ramswaroop
Gupta in favour of MP Electricity Board transferring Khasra
No.38/17 situated at Ambikapur, and second by Harbhajan Singh
in favour of MP Electricity Board transferring Khasra No.38/26, at
their residence in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 31
of the Act, 1908. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted by the
Inspector General, Registration and Superintendent Stamp on the
following two charges:-
“vkjksi dzekad 1%& Jh ds-ih- oEkkZ tc mi iath;d dk;kZy;
vafcdkiqj esa mi iath;d ds in ij inLFk Fks rc
muds }kjk Jh jkeLo:i xqIrk fuoklh vafcdkiqj rFkk Jh
gjHktu flag NkcM+k fuoklh vafcdkiqj }kjk fu”ikfnr xzke
fo’kuiqj ftyk&ljxqtk dh ‘kkldh; iV~Vs dh Hkwfe [kljk
ua-38@26 ,oa 38@7 ds fodz;i= dzekad 3509 ,oa 3510
fnukad 21-02-1994 dks cxSj dysDVj ljxqtk dh vuqefr ds
iath;u fd;k x;kA bl izdkj muds }kjk e-iz- Hkw&jktLo
lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 165¿7À¿,À ,oa ¿10À dk mYya?ku
fd;k x;kA bl izdkj muds }kjk vius inh; drZO;ksa dk
laiknu iw.kZ fu”Bk ls u dj ykijokgh cjrh xbZA
3vkjksi dzaekd 2%& Jh ds-ih-oEkkZ mi iath;d }kjk mijksDr
nLrkostksa dk iath;d i{kdkjksa ds fuokl ij tkdj iath;d
dh lqfo/kk iznku dh xbZ tcfd iath;u ds fnukad dks nksuksa
fodzsrk iath;u dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus esa iw.kZ :i ls l{ke
FksA bl izdkj muds }kjk vius inh; drZO;ksa ds laiknu djus
esa ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gSA
muds d`R; e/;izns’k flfoy lsok ¿vkpj.kÀ fu;e 1965
ds fu;e 3¿1À ¿iiÀ ds varxZr dnkpj.k gSA”
3. After the departmental proceeding and after recording evidence of
the parties, the Inspector General, Registration came to the
conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct, for
which penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect
has been imposed on the petitioner, against which the petitioner
had preferred an appeal before the State Government and the
State vide impugned order dated 18.5.2018 (Annexure-P/1) has
dismissed the appeal, which led to filing of the present writ
petition.
4. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner would submit that there is no material
available on record to show that the land bearing Khasra No.38/17
transferred by Ramswaroop Gupta in favour of MP Electricity
Board and the land bearing Khasra No.38/26 transferred by
Harbhajan Singh in favour of MP Electricity Board were leased out
to them by the Government and, therefore, it could not be
registered in favour of the State Electricity Board without
permission of the Collector, as required under Section 165 (7-b)
read with Section 10 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for
4
short ‘the Code’). Furthermore, registration of the sale deeds at
the residence of Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh is in
accordance with the proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908.
Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel
would support the impugned order and submit that admittedly, the
lands bearing Khasra Nos.38/26 and 38/17 were leased out to
Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh respectively and,
therefore, permission of the Collector was necessary in view of
the provisions under Section 165 (7-b) of the Code. Furthermore,
the two sellers were hale and hearty at the relevant point of time
and, therefore, proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908 could not
have been invoked by the Sub-Registrar/petitioner. As such, the
Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 34 (3) of
the Act of 1908 which states as under:-
“34. Enquiry before registration by registering
officer.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(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;
5
(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.”
A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that
enquiry to be made by the registering officer is confined to (i) on
the factum of execution of the document, (ii) the identity of the
person who claims to have executed the document and (iii) the
right of the person who appears as a representative, assignee or
agent of the executant.
8. If the registering officer is satisfied about the factum of execution
and the identity of the person executing the document, he
becomes obliged to register the document by virtue of the
provisions of Section 35(1) of the Act of 1908 which states as
under:-
“35. Procedure on admission and denial of
execution respectively.- (1) (a) if all the persons
executing the document appear personally before
the registering officer and are personally known to
him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are
the person they represent themselves to be, and
if they all admit the execution of the document, or
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a
representative, assign or agent, such
representative, assign or agent admits the
execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead,
and his representative or assign appears before
the registering officer and admits the execution,
the registering officer shall register the document
as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.”
6
9. The obligation of the registering officer to register a document
presented to him for the purpose, after reaching a subjective
satisfaction about the identity of the person and the factum of
execution, is made explicitly clear in the last portion of Section
35(1), by the use of the words “the Registering Officer shall
register the document” as directed to Section 58 to 61 of the Act.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Gopi Vs. Sub-
Registrar and Others1 has held that the registering officer is not
concerned with the title held by the executant and he has no
adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title,
and held in para-15 as under:-
“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 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 Sub-Registrar 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.”
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740
7
11. Similarly, Section 165 (7-b) & 10 of the Code state as under:-
“(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), a person who holds land from the
State Government or a person who holds land in
Bhoomiswami rights under sub-section (3) of
section 158 or whom right to occupy land is
granted by the State Government or the Collector
as a Government lessee and who subsequently
becomes Bhoomiswami of such land, shall not
transfer such land without the permission of a
revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector,
given for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Indian Registrations Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), no
officer empowered to register documents
thereunder shall admit to registration any
document which purports to contravene the
provisions of this section.”
12. A careful perusal of Section 165 (7-b) clearly shows that the land
granted to a person by the State Government or the Collector as a
Government lessee and who subsequently becomes
Bhoomiswami of such land, shall not be transferred without the
permission of a revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector,
for reasons to be recorded in writing. Sub-section (10) of Section
165 provides that any officer empowered to register documents
under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 shall not admit to
registration any document which purports to contravene the
provisions of Section 165. The purpose of this sub-section is to
put a check on the transfers made in contravention of the
provisions of this section (S.165). The prohibition on registration
contained in sub-section (10) is on the same footing as one in the
8
Registration Act. If an instrument is registered in contravention of
the provisions of this sub-section, the registration is invalid. Such
registration is ineffective and should be ignored. The Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Punau
Vs. Ajitram & Others2 has held that a transfer made in
contravention of Section 165 (6) is void and not voidable.
13. In the instant case, though Khasra No.38/17 owned by
Ramswaroop Gupta was recorded as Bhoomiswami land, but
there is no mention in Revenue Records produced before the
petitioner/sub-registrar that the land is a Government lessee.
Similarly, in the case of Harbhajan Singh, the land bearing Khasra
No.38/26 was recorded as Bhoomiswami of the said land holder
and the same has not been recorded in revenue record, as held
by him, as Government lessee. The two sale deeds (Annexure-
P/3 & P/4) filed before this Court clearly recites that there is no
violation of Section 165 of the Code and the land has not been
recorded as held by two sellers as Government lessee. As such,
there was no material before the petitioner/sub-registrar while
admitting two sale deeds of Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan
Singh that the land is covered by Section 165 (7-b) and by virtue
of Section 165 (10) of the Code, registration of the subject sale
deeds will not be valid as it would contravene the provisions
mentioned in Section 165 (7-b) of the code. Even otherwise, it is
not the case of the State that there was material before the
2 1975 JLJ 715
9
registering officer/petitioner to hold that the lands bearing Khasra
No.38/17 owned by Ramswaroop Gupta and Khasra No.38/26
owned by Harbhajan Singh were a Government lessee and
transfer of land is prohibited by Section 165 (7-b). Furthermore, it
is not the case of the State Government that the two sale deeds
executed by Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh have
been declared void by the competent authority, as the transfer
was allegedly made in contravention of Section 165 (7-b) and the
transaction was void.
14. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the disciplinary
authority as well as by the appellate authority that the two sale
deeds could not have been registered in the light of Section 165
(10) of the Code is erroneous and contrary to the material
available on record.
15. As regards charge No.2 that the petitioner/sub-registrar has
allowed registration at their residence, it would be appropriate to
notice Section 31 of the Act, 1908 which reads as under:-
“31. Registration of acceptance for deposit at
private residence.- In ordinary cases the
registration or deposit of documents under this
Act shall be made only at the office of the officer
authorised to accept the same for registration or
deposit:
Provided that such officer may on special
cause being shown attend at the residence of any
person desiring to present a document for
registration or to deposit a will, and accept for
registration or deposit such document or will.”
10
16. A careful perusal of the proviso to Section 31 would show that the
registering officer may on special cause being shown attend at the
residence of the person desiring to present a document for
registration instead of the office of the officer authorised in this
behalf.
17. However, in the instant case, Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan
Singh, both have made an application which has been filed along
with Rejoinder in which reasons have been assigned and the
registering authority/petitioner has passed an order on that
application allowing them to register the subject documents in
their residence. Therefore, the decision of the Registering Officer/
petitioner allowing them to register the documents in their
residence by assigning sufficient cause cannot be impeached, as
the decision for visiting the residence of Ramswaroop Gupta and
Harbhajan Singh is the subjective satisfaction of the authority, and
the proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908 is enabling provision,
which takes away the rigour of Section 28 of the Act, 1908. In that
view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the charge-
sheeting authority has failed to prove/establish the charge Nos.1
& 2 against the petitioner/sub-registrar.
18. Accordingly, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which
was affirmed by the appellate authority dated 31.10.2000 and
18.5.2018 i.e. (Annexure-P/1 & P/2 respectively) are hereby
quashed and it is held that the petitioner/sub-registrar will be
entitled for all the consequential benefits, if any.
11
19. For the foregoing, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Barve