M/S Green One Drive Private Limited v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & ORS.

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 292/2025 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GREEN ONE DRIVE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Sumant Narang, Ms. Mansvini & Mr. Prateek Bhardwaj, Advocates.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Tushar Sannu with Ms Pulak Gupta Joshi, Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petition is for the following relief:

<a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to register/ File the sale certificate Sale Certificate issued by the Office of the Collector & District Magistrate Mumbai City bearing No. MPID / NSEL /Sale Certificate/Delhi/Nebsarai652/2023 Dated 05/09/2023.= 2.

The petitioner claims to have purchased land admeasuring 4 bigha and 9 biswa land situated at Khasra No.652, Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz

Khas, New Delhi [subject land] by way of auction conducted by the competent authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 [the Act of 1999]. Prior to the auction, the subject land had been attached by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 4(1)(ii) of the Act of 1999. 3.

Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 89 read with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 [the Act of 1908], the concerned Sub-Registrar is under an obligation to file a copy of the sale certificate in his Book No.1. He, therefore, submits that once the communication dated 05.09.2023 has been issued by the competent authority of NSEL Mumbai, the concerned authority is under an obligation to act upon the same. 4.

Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents points out from an internal communication that the land in question was acquired by the Government, and therefore, no direction can be passed to file a copy of the sale certificate in book no.1, under Section 89 of the Act of 1908. According to him, before the property in question was mortgaged or attached, no un-encumbrance certificate was obtained from the authority at Delhi.

5.

The submissions of Mr. Sannu are opposed by Mr. Mehta. 6.

The Court however finds that there does not seem to be any order of rejection passed by the registering officer with respect to the petitioner's request for filing of the certificate of sale in his Book No.1. If for any reason the registering officer is empowered to refuse filing under Section 89 of the Act of 1908, the same must be assigned after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7.

Under these circumstances, leaving all questions open, let the petitioner to appear before the registering officer within a period of fifteen days from today. Thereafter, the registering officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order within a period of two months from the conclusion of the hearing. 8.

If thereafter the petitioner has any grievance, he shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law. 9.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026 Tr/amg