Lakshay Jain v. Registrar / District Magistrate (South West District Delhi)
$~153 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5292/2026 LAKSHAY JAIN .....Petitioner Through:
Petitioner in person.
versus REGISTRAR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DELHI) .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
% 20.04.2026 1.
The instant petition is for the following reliefs: "1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the refusal order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Sub-Registrar, and the order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the Registrar, Kapashera, as being without jurisdiction.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Registrar, Kapashera, to register the Petitioner's Rectification Deed / Declaration Deed.
3. Provide any compensation that the Hon'ble court may deem fit for continuing cause of action.
4. Pass any other order(s) deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2.
The impugned order dated 08.04.2026 passed by the Registrar / District Magistrate (South West District Delhi) is under challenge. Paragraph nos. 7 to 11 of the said order is extracted as under: "7. The Sub-Registrar in the refusal order dated 05.07.2025 has marked "Whereas on scrutiny of the instrument it was observed/revealed that Khasra number for which the deed/document is presented falls under Awarded Land. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Hence, the document in question cannot be registered in this office. Therefore, the undersigned has sufficient reason to refuse the document
8. On the perusal of Declaration Deed, at page 3, the appellant had submitted "WHEREAS there was a typing mistake, which occurred due to oversight, in the said Sale Deed dated 03.04.2024, the Khanra Number is mentioned wrong on page 3 and 4 which is mentioned as under KHASRA NO 18/24/2 instead of correct KHASRA NO. 18/24/1 to be mentioned in the said sale deed"
9. The appellant basically had unilaterally sought to change the details of property from 18/24/2 to 18/24/1 through a declaration deed. For such an exercise, both the parties are necessary. A declaration deed cannot be used to substantially change the contents of original deed, like the property address in this case, without the consent of the second party which has executed the sale deed.
10. Also it is to state that the grounds of refusal as mentioned by the SubRegistrar in order dated 05.07.2025 are grossly wrong as the contents like Property address can only be changed by consent of both the parties and not unilaterally,
11. On the above grounds as mentioned above, the appeal as filed by Appellant is hereby dismissed."
3.
A perusal of the record indicate that the petitioner sought to alter the description of the property from Khasra number 18/24/2 to 18/24/1 through a unilateral declaration deed.
4.
The concerned authority has, in the opinion of this Court rightly concluded that for such an exercise, both the parties are necessary. A declaration deed cannot be used to substantially change the contents of the original deed like the property address in the instant case, without the consent of the other party.
5.
For all those reasons, the Court is not inclined to accept the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
submissions made by the petitioner.
6.
Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 7.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to undertake necessary steps in accordance with law, as may be permissible under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 20, 2026/SH The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.