Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
1 WP-13668-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 13668 of 2026
ANKIT KUMAR GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following reliefs:
“a. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the relevant records from the respondents.
b. That the Hon’ble Court by the writ of Mandamus may
kindly be pleased to quash/ Set aside the order dated
17.03.2026 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Umaria.
c. That the Hon’ble Court by the writ of Mandamus may
kindly be direct the registration of the sale deed
submitted by the appellant.
d. Cost of the petition be awarded.
e. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit,
in the circumstances of the case, be awarded.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
aggrieved by returning of the unregistered sale deed v i d e order dated
17.03.2026 passed by Sub-Registrar, Umaria without assigning any reason
whatsoever. Learned counsel referred to Annexure P-1, the order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
2 WP-13668-2026
17.03.2026 to contend that the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the sale
deed citing Rule 35 of the MP Registration Rules, 1939 (for brevity ‘the
Rules’) and Rule 19 of the Rules for declining registration of the document
but no reason is assigned for return of the document or pointing out any
inconsistency or lacuna in the document requiring correction under Rule 19.
Therefore, only request of the petitioner is to direct the Sub-Registrar to
reconsider to reconsider and determine the registration of the proposed sale
deed in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the State referring to Annexure P-1, submits
that the document(proposed sale deed) was returned under Section 19 but he
was at loss to explain the specific reason for return of the document in the
order dated 17.03.2026.
4. Considered.
5. Rule 19 of the Rules reads as under:
“19. Return of documents for correction etc.
– The following documents may be returned for
amendment, correction, or supply of omissions :-
(a)A document which is not in a language commonly
used in the district, is not understood by the Registering
Officer, and is unaccompanied by a true translation and
a true copy, as required by Section 19 of the Act.
(b)A document which is illegible or is in a character
other than the ordinary character of the language
purporting to be used in the district and is
unaccompanied by a true transliteration into the
ordinary character of the language and by a true copy.
(c)A document which contains an interlineation, blank,
erasure or alteration which has not been attested with
the signature or initials of the person executing the
document, as required by Section 20 of the Act.
(d)A document in which the description of immovable
property is not sufficient for the identification of such
properly, as required by Section 21 of the Act.
(e)A document in which land is not described in
accordance with the instructions contained in Rule 18Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:326493 WP-13668-2026
when a survey has been extended to the land or a record
of rights has been prepared for the land.
(f)A document which contains a map or plan of which
no copy has been filed, as required by Section 21 (4) of
the Act.
(g)A document which requires a stamp under the Court
Fees Act, 1870, is improperly stamped.
(h)A document which does not bear the date of its
execution or bears a date subsequent to the date of
presentation.
(i)A document which is liable to ad valorem duty under
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the value or
consideration of which is either not stated in money or
is only partly so stated, vide Section 27 of the Act.(j)[A
document comprising immovable property partly
situated in the Municipality or Corporation or Block
and partly situated outside it, which does not contain the
particulars about the value or consideration separately
as required by Section 161 of the Madhya Pradesh
Municipalities Act, 1961: Section 133 A of the Madhya
Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; Section 68
of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1981.]
[Substituted by Notification No. 10-1-III-87-90, dated
20-7-1990.]
(k)A document which, being a lease of immovable
property, other than a lease for agricultural purposes,
has not been executed by both the lessor and the lessee,
vide Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
as amended by Section 55 of Act XX of 1929.
(1)[ A document required to be registered under the
provisions of the clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of the Act which purports to transfer, assign,
limit or extinguish the right, title, or interest of any
person to or in any immovable property valued at more
than two lakhs, and along with a certificate from the
Income Tax Officer to the following effect has not been
furnished :- [Substituted by Notification No. 10-1-III-
87-90, dated 20-7-1990.](a)that such person has either
paid or made satisfactory provision for payment of all
existing liabilities under the Act, the Excess Profits Tax
Act, 1940, the Business Profit Tax Act, 1947, the
Income Tax Act, 1961, the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the
Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 and the Gift Tax Act, 1958,
or(b)that registration of the document will not
prejudicially affect the recovery of any existing liability
under any of the aforesaid Act.]
(m)[ A document required to be registered under the
provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 pertaining to
Agricultural Land, which is not presented alongwith the
Bhoo Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika as required by Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
4 WP-13668-2026
114 (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,
1959.] [Added by Notification No. 2728-III-75, dated 6-
6-1975.]
(n)[ A document relating to transfer of immovable
property which is not accompanied by a statement in
duplicate prescribed under Section 269-P of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961)] [Added by
Notification No. 1074-III-77, dated 26-2-1977.]
(o) [ A document required to be registered under the
provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of
Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 (No. 16 of 1908)
pertaining to Agricultural land is not presented
alongwith a copy of the Panchsala Khasra [certified by
the patwari of the concerned circle or] [Inserted by
Notification No. (16)-B-4-2-2000-CTD-V, dated 7-4-
2001.] a Revenue Officer authorised by the
Revenue Department in this behalf.]”
It is also apt to refer to Rule 35 of the Rules which reads as follows:
“35. Reasons for refusal.
– The following shall he deemed to be valid reasons for
refusal to register a document :-On presentation and
before acceptance
(a)That the document is not properly stamped in
accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, or rules
framed under that Act, and having been impounded, that
has been returned by the Collector who has not, by his
certificate, made under Section 40 (1) (a) of the said
Act, rendered the document admissible for registration.
(b) That the document has not beem presented by a
person executing or claiming under it, or by his
representative or assign, or by an agent of any of them,
duly authorised by a power-of-attorney executed and
authenticated under Section 33 of the Act, vide Section
32 of the Act.
(c)That, in the case of a will or authority to adopt, the
presenter is not entitled to present the instrument under
Section 40 of the Act.
(d)That presentation of the document is time-barred
under Section 23, 23-A, 24 or 26 of the Act, applicatio
under Section 25 of the Act for extension of the period
having been rejected by the Registrar.
(e) That a document returned under clause (a) or clause
(b) of Rule 19 for presentation with a true translation,
transliteration or true copy, is again presented, without
the necessary accompaniments.[(e-1) That a document
returned under clause (m) of Rule 19 for presentation
with Bhoo Adhikar Avam Rin-Pustika is again
presented, without the same.] [Inserted by Notification.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
5 WP-13668-2026
No. 2728-III-75, dated 6-6-1975-][(e-2) That a
document returned under clause (n) of Rule 19 for
presentation, with the required statement, is again
presented without the same.] [Added by Notification
No. 1074-III-77, dated 26-2-1977.] [(e-3) That the
document returned under clause (1) of Rule 19 for
presentation with the required certificate from the
Income Tax Officer is presented again without the
same. [Inserted by Notification No. 10-1-III-87-90,
dated 20-7-1990.](e-4) That the document purports to
contravene the provisions of Section 165 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 i.e. refusal under
Section 165 (10) of that Code. (e-5) That the document
returned under clause (o) of Rule 19 for presentation
with the required evidence to show that the notice of the
intended transfer, to the Competent Authority is given
and is again presented without the same.][(e-6) That the
document returned under clause (i) of Rule 19 for
presentation with the certified copy of Panchsala
Khasra is presented again without it.] [Inserted by
Notification No. (16) B-4-2-2000-CTD-V. dated 7-4-
2001.]
(f)That the document has not been correctly drafted
(Section= 20 to 22 of the Act), or property stamped
under the Court Lees Act, 1870, and correction or
amendment is impracticable or has not been made in the
time given vide Rule 22 or 20 respectively.
(g)[ x x x] [Omitted by Notification No. 1247-R, dated
16-7-1941.]
[(h-1) x x x [Omitted by Notification No. 10-1-III-87-
90, dated 20-7-1990.]
(h – 2) * xx(i) * xx(j) * xxx(k) * xxx ]After
acceptance(1)That appearance of persons executing
documents of their representatives assigns or agents
authorised under Section 33 of the Act has not taken
place without the time allowed by Section 34 of the
Act. Note: If after acceptance of a document it appears
probable that the period allowed by Section 34 of the
Act will expire before the executants appear, the
Registering Officer shall advice the presenter to apply
for an extension of time.
(m) That the identity of the executants has not been
established to the satisfaction of the Registering Officer;
or that an alleged representative, assign or agent has
failed to prove his status, vide Section 35 of the Act.
(n) That the death of the person alleged to have
executed the document has not been proved.
(o)That the person by whom the document purports to
have been executed appears to be a minor, idiot or
lunatic.
(p)That the execution is not admitted by the executant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
6 WP-13668-2026
personally, or by any one of the several representatives,
left by a deceased executant, vide Section 35 of the Act.
(q)That, in the case of wills and authorities, to adopt
presented after the death of the testator or donor, the
execution is not proved, vide Section 41 of the Act.
(r)That fees and fines, having been demanded, have not
been paid, vide Sections 25, 34 and 80 of the Act.(s) If
the document being a lease of immovable property has
not been executed by both the lessor and the lessee after
it has been returned for amendment under clause (k) of
Rule 19.”
6. The impugned order dated 17.03.2026, Annexure P-1 is
examined in the light of aforestated statutory provision. When the Sub-
Registrar proposes to return the document for any of the reasons enumerated
in Rule 19, it is expected that the concerned parties be apprised of the
reasons for declining the registration of the document so that the party
concerned may rectify the defect or lacuna so informed. But, the impugned
order dated 17.03.2026 does not reflect any such reason. Although there is
provision of appeal under Rule 37 of the Rules, yet impugned order is
apparently without any reason. The Registrar has failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in view of above provisions. There is manifest
impropriety bordering illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction is necessitated for maintaining
propriety of the proceeding.
7. Considering these aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated
17.03.2026 is hereby set aside. The Sub- Registrar, Bandhavgarh, Umaria is
directed to reconsider the registration of proposed sale deed dated
19.02.2026 strictly in accordance with law and pass a reasoned speaking
order. This exercise shall be concluded within a period of one month from
the date of production of certified copy of this order. If he considers it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:32649
7 WP-13668-2026
appropriate to decline the registration, the outcome be communicated
immediately to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
ks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 28-04-2026
12:16:07
