Aniket Vaid v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Revenue Deptt and Ors

ORDER (ORAL)

¶1By this petition, petitioner herein has challenged order dated 06.04.2026, passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the application filed by him under Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908, has been rejected.

¶2It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has not been passed, in terms of Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus: "57. Registering officers to allow inspection of certain books and indexes, and to give certified copies of entries"

WP (C) No.1686/2026

(1) Subject to the previous payment of the fees payable in that behalf, the Books No. 1 and 2 and the Index relating to Book No. 1 shall be at all times open to inspection by any person applying to inspect the same; and, subject to the provisions of section 62 copies of entries in such books shall be given to all persons applying for such copies."

¶3In terms of the section 57 of the Registration Act, 1908, Sub-Registrar, Vijaypur-respondent No. 3 is under an obligation to allow the petitioner to inspect Book No. 1 and the relevant indexes maintained in the office respondent No. 3 for the years 2019 to 2026 after payment of requisite fee.. However, he has rejected the application on account of the fact that that the application is non-specific regarding number of documents. The prescribed fee for such an extensive search cannot be accurately calculated or realized, rendering the application defective. The applicant has been granted liberty to file a fresh application providing specific details (such as Registration Numbers, dates, Khasra Nos. of the document inspected alongwith requisite fees as prescribed under the J&K Registration Rules.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not averse to payment of any amount of fee prescribed in terms of the Act.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be satisfied, if this petition is disposed of, at this stage, with a direction to respondent No. 3-Sub-RegistrarVijaypur, Samba to re-consider the application of the petitioner within a time bond manner.

¶6Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the proposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

WP (C) No.1686/2026

¶7Be that as it may, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, impugned order dated 06.04.2026, is set aside. Respondent No. 3-Sub-Registrar, Vijaypur is directed to re-consider the application dated 25.

03.2026 after deposit of the requisite fee, strictly in terms of the Act.

¶8Disposed of along with all connected application(s) if any.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)

JUDGE JAMMU

05.06.2026 Asif Tantray

Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No

Sr. No. 149 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 1686/2026 Date of pronouncement: 05.06.2026 Uploaded on: 06.06.2026 Ankiet Vaid, Age 28 Years S/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar R/o Ward No. 1, Vijaypur District Samba-184120 …. Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Bhavesh Bhushan, Advocate V/s 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to Government of J&K Revenue Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu - 180001 2. Inspector General of Registration, J&K Department of Registration Government of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Secretariat, Jammu - 180001 3. Sub-Registrar, Vijaypur District Samba - 184120 …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE