S. 47 Registration Act | Time From When Registered Deed Will Operate Can't Obliterate Mandatory Submission Before Cut Off Date: Rajasthan HC

The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "The provisions under the Indian Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act clearly indicate that a lease deed may not be valid so long as it remains unregistered but as soon as it has been registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. This is quite a settled law that section 47 of the Registration Act operates between the parties to the deed and may also affect the rights of third parties. However, the effect of section 47 of the Registration Act cannot be stretched to obliterate the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed/rent deed on or before 24th May 2023". 

The court was hearing an appeal against a single judge's order, filed by a candidate seeking LPG Distributorship who was rejected for not following the instructions appearing in the Manual for selection of LPG Distributors as well as advertisement for such distributorship and submitting a lease deed that was registered after the stipulated cut-off date.

Before the single judge, the appellant had challenged notice of December 28, 2023 requiring him to provide registered Power of Attorney on or before May 24, 2023 and the order dated February 6, 2024 by which he was intimated that the lease deed registered after the cut-off date that is, after May  24, 2023 was not valid as per the guidelines for Selection of the LPG distributorship. 

The respondent-BPCL took a stand that in terms of the 'Manual for Selection of LPG Distributorship' the land document was required to be registered on or before the last date for submission of the application. BPCL also argued that Power of Attorney was required to be compulsorily registered under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, and, therefore, the lease deed which was not registered prior to the extended last date, that is, on or before May 24, 2023 could not have been accepted.

The single judge did not accept BPCL's contention on requirement for compulsory registration of the Power of Attorney. On the other hand the single judge did not agree with the candidate that the lease deed which was executed on March 23, 2023 shall have effect from that date notwithstanding, its registration on a subsequent date. 

Before the division bench the appellant contended that it was the date of execution and not the date of registration that was relevant, and as per section 47 of the Registration Act even though the lease deed was registered at a later date, it had an effect from its date of execution.

The Court agreed with the effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act, but held that its effect could not be stretched to evade the requirement of submitting a lease deed that was registered before the stipulated date in the advertisement as well as the Manual.

The Court opined that it was in public interest that the employer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”) adhered to the stipulations made in the advertisements as well as the Manual, and such adherence could not be faulted.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority the Apex Court had held, “an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them”.

Similarly, in Nazir Ahmed v King Emperor, Privy Council opined that where power was given to do a thing in a certain way, it had to be done in that way only, or not at all and other methods of performance were forbidden.

In this background, the Court held that there was no reason to not follow this principle and that it would be beyond its jurisdiction to direct to BPCL to not adhere to the Manual and the advertisement.

The Court also stated that mere raising an arguable point was not a ground for the Court to exercise its inherent powers.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the bench refused to interfere the single judge's order.

Title: Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 73

For Appellants: Mr. Manoj Bhandari assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater

For Respondents: Ms. Abhilasha Bora