Raj Kumar and Another Vs Deputy Commissioner Cum Registrar and Another

The petitioners have approach e d this Court seeking a writ o f certiorari q u ashing the order dated 18.09. 2 025, Annexure P-2, passed b y Sub-Registr a r, U.T., Chandigarh, refusing to register the sale deed in respec t of twenty p er cent share in residential house no.3144, Sector 28-D , Chandigarh, and the order dated 19.05.20 2 6, Annexure P-4, whereby th e Deputy Co m missioner-cum-Registrar dis m issed the petitioners’ appea l against the s a id order. 2. Learned counsel contended th a t petitioner no.1 presented fo r registration, a sale deed of twenty pe r cent freehold share in th e aforementio n ed residential house before the second respondent/Sub - Registrar fo r registration under the provisio n s of the Registration Act, 1908 , which was r e fused by him in violation of l a w. The appeal against the sai d JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

CWP-20477-2026

¶15

-2-

¶16

rejection was also dismissed without appreciating that the Sub-Registrar had no adjudicatory powers, and was bound to register the documents presented before him. As per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.3954 of 2025 titled K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar and others , even if an executant executes a sale deed in respect of a house in which he has no title, registration cannot be refused if all requisite procedural compliances have been made.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice, however, submits that there is nothing illegal or irregular about the impugned orders, and in refusing registration of twenty per cent freehold share in the residential house the officers acted in accordance with law. In this regard he has referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Resident’s Welfare Association and another v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others , 2023 AIR SC 570, which is to the following effect:

¶18

In that view of the matter, we hold that in view of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules and the repeal of the 2001 Rules, fragmentation/division/bifurcation/ apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase-I of Chandigarh is prohibited.

¶19

We further issue the following directions:

¶20

xxx xxx xxx (i) to (v) (vi) Till a final decision as aforesaid is taken by the Central Government:

¶21

a. the Chandigarh Administration shall not sanction any plan of a building which exfacie appears to be a modus operandi to convert a single dwelling unit into three

¶22

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CWP-20477-2026

¶24

-3-

¶25

different apartments occupied by three strangers; and

¶26

b. no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or agreement or settlement amongst coowners of a residential unit shall be registered nor shall it be enforceable in law for the purpose of bifurcation or division of a single residential unit into floor-wise apartments.

¶27

3.1. In light of these directions, the Administration issued public notice dated 09.02.2023, notifying the general public of its decision regarding the sanction of residential buildings in Chandigarh; a copy whereof has been furnished by the learned counsel and retained on the case file as Annexure ‘A’. The relevant extract of the public notice reads as under:

¶28

Transfer in which 100% property is being purchased by either a single person or multiple persons belonging to the same family, will be allowed irrespective of the fact whether present owners are members of the same family or strangers/outside family.

¶29

This public notice was challenged before this Court in CWP-23563-2023 titled Pooja Bharat Kapoor v. U.T., Chandigarh Administration and others and connected cases, which were decided vide judgment dated 20.02.2025, upholding the validity of the notice and dismissing the petitions. The SLP filed against the said judgment is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, but there is no stay. Accordingly, it was in the light of directions issued by the Supreme Court, as aforementioned, that a decision was taken by the Administration on 23.01.2023, directing the Sub-Registrar to

¶30

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

CWP-20477-2026

¶32

-4-

¶33

temporarily withhold part-share based transfers of residential properties and entering of mutation till further orders.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

In view of the factual background, the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the consequential directions issued by the Chandigarh Administration not to register any agreement amongst co-owners of the residential units for the purpose of bifurcation or division of a single residential unit, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders refusing registration of the petitioners’ sale deed with respect to twenty per cent share of the house in question. Also, K. Gopi case ( supra ) has no application to the facts of the instant case. The Court therein decided the validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules notified by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and held the same to be ulta vires the Registration Act, 1908. The observations therein have been made in that context, whereas in Resident’s Welfare Association case ( supra ) the Supreme Court issued specific directions, reproduced hereinbefore, to preserve the heritage of Chandigarh and will have a binding effect on registration of residential units in the Union Territory.

¶36

In view thereof, finding no ground to entertain the petition, it stands dismissed.

¶37

July 09, 2026	(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
Jaspreet Kaur Whether speaking/reasoned	JUDGE  : Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶38

JASPREET KAUR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Raj Kumar and Another v. Deputy Commissioner Cum Registrar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Another v. Deputy Commissioner Cum Registrar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Daksya Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana State Industrial and Others

Prem Kaur Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rahul Vs State of Haryana and Others

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others