The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in an order by the Appellate Authority’s direction to register sale deed held that under Section 84 of the Act, a Registering Officer is deemed to be a public servant, though not a Judge or Judicial Officer. While every Judge or Judicial Officer is a public servant, the converse does not hold true. Judicial Officers are primarily entrusted with the administration of justice and do not ordinarily discharge the administrative or executive functions typically associated with other government servants.
The aforesaid observation was given by a Single Bench of Justice Irshad Ali while allowing the petition filed by Mohd. Yaqoob and another.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2014 passed by opposite party no. 1.
The Court found that,
“……the registration of sale deed was executed in pursuance to an order passed in appeal. Registration of the sale deed was not executed in a independent capacity, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court and registration of sale deed is dependent upon the order of the Appellate Court.”
In fact, the matter pertains to Plot Nos. 41 and 42, situated in Village Meharban Nagar, Pargana and Tehsil Nanpara, Bahraich, which were recorded in the name of Vedant Sanstha, Arya Nagar, Nanpara.
Pravin Kumar Sharma, claiming to be its President, executed a sale deed of Plot No. 41 in favour of opposite party no. 2, which was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Nanpara on 04.01.2011, and the executant was summoned for statement.
Despite due notice, Praveen Kumar Sharma failed to appear to admit execution, whereupon the Sub-Registrar, refused registration of the document.
Aggrieved thereby, opposite party no. 2 preferred a time-barred appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Further, upon knowing of the pendency of the appeal and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, petitioner no. 1 filed objections.
Subsequently, opposite party no. 1, by order dated 15.12.2014, without condoning the delay and despite lacking the requisite jurisdiction, allowed the appeal. He relied on judgments of the Supreme Court, and rejected the objections of petitioner no. 1, directing the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed, which was accordingly complied with.
During the course of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to courts, hence, the Appellate Authority’s order directing registration of the sale deed is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
The Court noted that,
“………the office of Registrar, Additional Registrar or the Sub Registrar may not be treated as a Court. Accordingly the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable in a proceeding under the Registration Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act categorically extends the power for extension of period beyond the date of limitation provided by the Limitation Act or statute to a Court and not to other authorities.”
The Court found merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners and reject the plea of the respondents that the matter pertains to a different forum.
After considering the submissions advanced by the parties, the Court observed that,
“…….the Sub-Registrar or the Appellate Authority under the Act though works as public servant but does not discharge duties as presiding officer of a Court. Accordingly, the limitation Act shall not be applicable. The impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction.”
Accordingly, the writ petition allowed.
Case: Mohd. Yaqoob and another vs District Registrar/A.D.M. Fandr Bahraich and 2 others
Case No: WRIT – C No. – 1000572 of 2015
Date of Order: 10.03.2026
Status: Allowed
