Srinagar, August 14, KDC: Holding that a registering officer exercises purely ministerial functions and has no statutory authority to adjudicate rights or offer unsolicited legal advice directing citizens to civil courts, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the mere use of the word “irrevocable” in a General Power of Attorney (GPA) does not bar the principal from revoking it.
A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal allowed a writ petition filed by Muzaffar Hussain Rather, a resident of Gujjar Nagar, Jammu, directing the Sub-Registrar (SRO Jammu South, Janipur) to register the deed revoking his 2009 General Power of Attorney within seven days.
The petitioner had executed an “Irrevocable General Power of Attorney” on March 25, 2009, in favor of one Chand Bi Bi of Doda. Alleging fraudulent conduct and breach of trust, Rather published a public notice and issued a legal notice terminating the agency in August 2025. However, when he presented the revocation deed for registration, the Sub-Registrar withheld registration without passing any formal speaking order of refusal.
In its response, the Revenue Department contended that pursuant to a January 2023 government order, the head “Cancellation of Instrument” had been deleted ab initio from the National Generic Document Registration System (NGDRS) portal checklist.
The department argued that Sub-Registrars lack the power to cancel instruments, which exclusively vests in civil courts under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, and suggested that the petitioner ought to file a civil suit.
Rejecting the state’s stand, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that under Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, a Sub-Registrar’s inquiry is strictly limited to verifying the identity of the executant and ensuring that the document was indeed executed by the person appearing before them.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgments, the Bench said that registering authorities possess no adjudicatory powers to decide the underlying validity, title, or merits of an instrument presented for registration.
“It is settled law that Respondent No. 2 (Sub Registrar, SRO Jammu South Janipur) exercises purely ministerial duties under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and possesses no adjudicatory or advisory power under the statutory framework. By tendering unsolicited advice that the petitioner must resort to civil remedies to seek cancellation of the Power of Attorney, Respondent No. 2 has acted entirely beyond the scope of its statutory mandate. The conduct of Respondent No. 2 in keeping the registration of the revocation deed pending is antithetical to public service and reflects an unwarranted, citizen-frustrating approach,” the Court observed.
Addressing the legal status of an “irrevocable” power of attorney, the Court held that under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, an agency remains inherently revocable at the will of the principal unless it is coupled with an independent interest or right in the subject-matter property in favor of the agent.
The Bench also dismissed the technical excuse regarding portal limitations, holding that the absence of a distinct category under the NGDRS portal cannot be cited to frustrate statutory registration rights.
Directing the Sub-Registrar to complete the registration within a week, the High Court held that if the attorney-holder feels aggrieved by the revocation, the appropriate remedy lies in challenging the action before a competent civil court in accordance with law.
Advocate Azmat Ullah Parihar appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli and advocate Sagira Jaffer represented the Union Territory. (KDC)
