Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Saw / 3154U / 2025Vasudev Saraswat vs District Collector … on 19 May, 2026
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1767/2025
Vasudev Saraswat S/o Onkar Prasad, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Kharda Colony, Lunkaransar, District Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. District Collector, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Sho, Police Station Lunkaransar, District Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. Superintendent Of Police, District Bikaner.
4. State Bank Of India, Stressed Assets Recover Branch,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan (302004).
5. Au Small Finance Bank Ltd., Patta No. 172, Hotel Laxmi
Residency, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak, associate to
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
Mr. Deelip Kawadia with
Ms. Nidhi Singhvi and Mr. Priyansh
Bohra.
Mr. Vijay Purohit.
Mr. Pradeep Singh Rajpurohit.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
19/05/2026
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner
assailing the judgment dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in SBCWP No.8869/2023 titled as “Vasudev Saraswat
v. District Collector, Bikaner & Ors.”, whereby the writ petition
preferred by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. The
appellant-petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“1. That the order dated 07.11.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.8869/2023 be quashed and set aside and;
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1767/2025]
2. That the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8869/2023 may kindly
be allowed and prayer sought in such writ petition may kindly
be granted in whole and;
3. That any other appropriate order, which may be deemed
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also
be passed in favor of the appellant.”
2. It is an admitted position that the appellant-petitioner claims
rights over the immovable property situated at Ward No.14,
opposite Karni Mata Mandir, Lunkaransar, admeasuring 65 x 33 ft.
(2145 sq. ft.), on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell
dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), allegedly
executed by one Pawan Kumar Bothra and Nemchand Bothra for a
consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that the
property in question does not constitute a “secured asset” and,
therefore, the respondents could not have initiated proceedings
under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the
SARFAESI Act“) against the appellant-petitioner. In support of the
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in North
Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. L. Doulo
Builders and Suppliers Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in [(2026) 3
SCC 310], decided on 16.12.2025.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submit that paragraph 14 of the impugned order itself reflects the
serious doubt entertained by the learned Single Judge regarding
the veracity and identity of the property in question. It has further
been submitted that before invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, the appellant-petitioner was
required to establish a lawful and legally recognizable title over
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1767/2025]
the property in question. In support of the said submissions,
reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq
Hussain (Civil Appeal No.1598/2023), decided on 01.11.2023,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that no
right, title or interest in an immovable property can be claimed on
the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or an unregistered
General Power of Attorney. The relevant observations of the
Hon’ble Apex Court read as under:-
“10. Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to
be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the
case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact
remains that no title could be transferred with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered
Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General
Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides
that a document which requires compulsory registration
under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally
enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis.
Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the
Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said
that the respondent would have acquired title over the
property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered
agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific
performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard,
reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the
Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right, title or interest in
immovable property can be conferred without a registered
document. Even the judgment of this Court in the case of
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) lays down the same
proposition. Reference may also be made to the following
judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj Vs. Deirdre Elizabeth (Wright)
Issar and Others2
(iii). M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited
Vs. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr.4
12. The embargo put on registration of documents would not
override the statutory provision so as to confer title on the
basis of unregistered documents with respect to immovable
property. Once this is the settled position, the respondent(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1767/2025]could not have maintained the suit for possession and mesne
profits against the appellant, who was admittedly in
possession of the property in question whether as an owner
or a licensee.
13. The argument advanced on behalf of the respondent that
the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) would
be prospective is also misplaced. The requirement of
compulsory registration and effect on non-registration
emanates from the statutes, in particular the Registration Act
and the Transfer of Property Act. The ratio in Suraj Lamps &
Industries (supra) only approves the provisions in the two
enactments. Earlier judgments of this Court have taken the
same view.
14. In case the respondent wanted to evict the appellant
treating him to be a licensee, he could have maintained a suit
on behalf of the true owner or the landlord under specific
instructions of Power of Attorney as landlord claiming to have
been receiving rent from the appellant or as Attorney of the
true owner to institute the suit on his behalf for eviction and
possession. That being not the contents of the plaint, we are
unable to agree with the reasoning given by the High Court in
the impugned order.
15. For all the reasons recorded above, the impugned
judgment deserves to be set aside and the suit deserves to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment is set aside and the suit is dismissed.”
5. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submits that even assuming the appellant-petitioner to be a
trespasser, he cannot be dispossessed except by following the due
process of law.
6. We have heard learned counsel representing the parties and
perused the material available on record.
7. Admittedly, Annexure-1, on the basis whereof the appellant-
petitioner seeks to assert his rights, is merely an unregistered
Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2014. The appellant-petitioner
does not possess any registered title document so as to establish
any lawful or legally recognizable right, title or interest in the
property in question. The proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are
already pending and the appellant-petitioner has failed to
demonstrate any ownership rights or legally enforceable interest
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1767/2025]
entitling him to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that, in absence of a
valid and registered title document, the appellant-petitioner
cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings initiated under
the SARFAESI Act by contending that the property in question
does not constitute a secured asset. The question as to whether
the property constitutes a secured asset cannot be adjudicated at
the behest of a person who himself lacks any lawful and
recognizable title or interest in the property. The law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shakeel Ahmed (supra) squarely
applies to the facts of the present case, wherein it has been
unequivocally held that no right, title or interest in an immovable
property can flow from an unregistered Agreement to Sell or an
unregistered General Power of Attorney.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find
any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment dated
07.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge warranting
interference in the present intra-court appeal. The appellant-
petitioner seeks to assert rights over the property solely on the
basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell, whereas the
Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document requiring
compulsory registration would not confer any right, much less a
legally enforceable right, on its basis. It is well settled that no title
in respect of an immovable property can be transferred on the
strength of such unregistered document and, at best, the remedy
flowing therefrom would be one for specific performance in
appropriate proceedings. Thus, the appellant-petitioner having
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24275-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1767/2025]
failed to establish any lawful and recognizable title or interest in
the property, no interference is called for in the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal (Writ) stands
dismissed.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
15-/Devesh/surabhi/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 02:06:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:33:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
