Disposed¶22

Shahid Ahmed Ferozie and Anr. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC23 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/12483/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of documents; Sub-Registrar refusal order dated 23.07.2024; unclear recital of property; reconsideration and fresh order after opportunity of hearing; K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, 2025 INSC 462; Delhi High Court; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J; W.P.(C) 12483/2024; petition disposed with directions; GNCTD respondents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the refusal order dated 23.07.2024 and pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing (considering inter alia K. Gopi, 2025 INSC 462); petitioner to appear before the Sub-Registrar with all necessary documents within 30 days; decision to be taken with due expedition. ¶22

Shahid Ahmed Ferozie and Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub-Registrar's refusal (order dated 23.07.2024) to register the documents presented by the petitioner should be reconsidered and a fresh registration decision taken after hearing the petitioner.

¶14

Court's answer

The Court directed the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the order dated 23.07.2024 refusing registration and to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, also considering the various decisions passed by this Court, including the Supreme Court decision in K. Gopi.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned Sub-Registrar along with all necessary documents within a period of 30 days.

¶20

Key takeaways

The concerned Sub-Registrar was directed to take an appropriate decision with due expedition once the petitioner appears with the documents.ratio¶21
The application for early hearing (CM APPL. 12167/2026) was allowed and stood disposed of, with the petition taken up for hearing the same day.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 12483/2024 (Delhi HC, single Judge, 23.02.2026 — Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J): Petition concerning non-registration of documents presented before the Sub-Registrar; registration had been refused by order dated 23.07.2024 on the ground that the recital of the property was not found clear. Counsel noted that documents with the same recital had been registered elsewhere and relied on K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors., 2025 INSC 462 (Supreme Court). Without adjudicating further, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the refusal order and pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, taking into account various decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court decision in K. Gopi; the petitioner was directed to appear before the Sub-Registrar with all necessary documents within 30 days, and the Sub-Registrar to decide with due expedition. Earlier fixed date of 08.04.2026 cancelled.

¶1

$~80

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12483/2024

¶4

SHAHID AHMED FEROZIE AND ANR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri, Advocate (Thr. VC)

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Raghavendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel, GNCTD for R-1, 2 and 3 (Thr. VC).

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 23.02.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 12167/2026 (EARLY HEARING)

¶11

For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer for early hearing is allowed. The petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

¶12

The application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 12483/2024

¶14

The sole grievance of the petitioner relates to non-registration of the documents presented before the Sub-Registrar.

¶15

The order of refusal dated 23.07.2024 reflects that the Sub-Registrar did not find the recital of the said property to be clear, and, accordingly, the same was refused.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the same recital

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/02/2026 at 15:37:25

¶18

various other documents have been registered by the respondent. He also places reliance on the decision passed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi vs. The Sub-Registrar & Ors.¹

¶19

Under these circumstances, instead of keeping this matter pending, it would be appropriate to direct the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the order dated 23.07.2024 and to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let the Sub-Registrar to also consider the various decisions passed by this Court, including the decision passed by the Supreme Court in K. Gopi.

¶20