Section 269UL — Restrictions on Registration of Documents

CHAPTER XX-C — PURCHASE BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN CERTAIN CASES OF TRANSFER

Section 269UL — Restrictions on registration, etc., of documents in respect of transfer of immovable property

Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise

Status: Historic / spent. Chapter XX-C was inserted by the Finance Act, 1986 and brought into force area-wise under section 269U; by section 269UP it does not apply to any transfer of immovable property effected on or after 1 July 2002. The pre-emptive-purchase machinery is therefore dormant. The section is reproduced and annotated in full for completeness of the Treatise.

Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch any provision of Chapter XX-C (sections 269U to 269UP).

Mechanism: Bars any registering officer from registering a document purporting to transfer such immovable property unless a certificate from the appropriate authority (the no-objection certificate) is furnished; and obliges the authority, where it does not order purchase, to issue such a certificate.

Litigation profile: Litigated on the issue and refusal of no-objection certificates and the registering officer's role.

A. COMMENTARY

The registration bar and the no-objection certificate

Section 269UL is what gives the Chapter teeth at the registry. No registering officer may register a document transferring the property unless the no-objection certificate of the appropriate authority is produced. Correspondingly, where the authority decides not to pre-empt the purchase, it is obliged to issue the certificate — it cannot simply sit on the file. The certificate is thus the lawful exit from the scheme for a genuine transaction.

Obligation to issue — DLF Universal

DLF Universal Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority confirms that where Form 37-I is duly filed and the authority does not order purchase, the proper course is to issue the no-objection certificate; the authority cannot decline on the ground that it doubts the legality of the agreement, that being outside its remit (Tanvi Trading; Sadarangani). Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports is to the same effect — purchase or certificate, nothing else.

Consequences where a purchase order fails — Shatabadi Trading

Union of India v. Shatabadi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. addresses the working of the registration/no-objection machinery and the parties' position where a pre-emptive purchase order does not survive (for example, when set aside following C.B. Gautam), including the treatment of tenanted property. The decision illustrates how the section 269UL clearance route operates once pre-emption is off the table.

Practical centrality

For conveyancers of the era, section 269UL was the practical pivot of the Chapter: the no-objection certificate was the document without which a sale deed could not be registered, and obtaining it was the routine endpoint of the Form 37-I process in the great majority of honest transactions.

B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)

Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025 (the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to Chapter XX-C). Page-header/footer artefacts of the source PDF have been removed; wording, clause-lettering and punctuation are unaltered.

Restrictions on registration, etc., of documents in respect of transfer of immovable property.

269UL. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), shall register any document which purports to transfer immovable property exceeding the value prescribed under section 269UC unless a certificate from the appropriate authority that it has no objection to the transfer of such property for an amount equal to the apparent consideration therefor as stated in the agreement for transfer of the immovable property in respect of which it has received a statement under sub-section (3) of section 269UC, is furnished along with such document.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall do anything or omit to do anything which will have the effect of transfer of any immovable property unless the appropriate authority certifies that it has no objection to the transfer of such property for an amount equal to the apparent consideration therefor as stated in the agreement for transfer of the immovable property in respect of which it has received a statement under sub-section (3) of section 269UC.

(3) In a case where the appropriate authority does not make an order under sub-section (1) of section 269UD for the purchase by the Central Government of an immovable property, or where the order made under sub-section (1) of section 269UD stands abrogated under sub-section (1) of section 269UH, the appropriate authority shall issue a certificate of no objection referred to in sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, sub-section (2) and deliver copies thereof to the transferor and the transferee.

C. AUTHORITIES

The authorities below govern the obligation to issue the no-objection certificate and the operation of the registration machinery.

Obligation to issue the no-objection certificate

DLF Universal Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (2000) 243 ITR 730 (SC)

Court / Bench Supreme Court of India (D.P. Wadhwa and Ruma Pal JJ.); decided 4 May 2000 (batch of appeals).

Held Within Rule 48-L the 'agreement for transfer' is the statement in Form 37-I; the 15-day filing period in Rule 48-L is directory, not mandatory, and runs from the date the agreement is reduced to writing in Form 37-I. Sub-section (4) of section 269UC permits the authority to point out only rectifiable defects in Form 37-I; it does not empower the authority to sit in judgment on the legality of the underlying agreement. Where Form 37-I is duly filed, the authority must either purchase or issue a no-objection certificate.

Relevance The leading Supreme Court exposition of section 269UC, the agreement requirement and Form 37-I; settles the directory nature of the filing timeline and the limited reach of section 269UC(4).

Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (2000) 243 ITR 752 (Calcutta)(DB)

Court Calcutta High Court, Division Bench.

Held The appropriate authority may only order purchase by the Central Government or grant a no-objection certificate; it has no additional discretionary or adjudicatory power over the transaction.

Relevance High Court authority reinforcing the binary 'purchase or NOC' scheme of sections 269UD and 269UL.

Operation of the scheme where a purchase order does not survive

Union of India v. Shatabadi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 93 / (2001) 6 SCC 748 (SC)

Court / Bench Supreme Court of India (S. Rajendra Babu and K.G. Balakrishnan JJ.); decided 10 August 2001.

Held Examined the consequences of a pre-emptive purchase order set aside in the light of C.B. Gautam, and the position of property subject to tenancy; clarified the working of the no-objection/registration machinery and the obligations flowing from section 269UL when a purchase order does not survive.

Relevance Supreme Court authority on the section 269UL no-objection-certificate / registration scheme and the restoration of parties' rights where a purchase order fails.

Tanvi Trading & Credits (P) Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (1991) 188 ITR 623 (Delhi)

Court Delhi High Court; decided 28 November 1990.

Held Section 269UD confers only a pre-emptive right to purchase at the apparent consideration (or to issue a no-objection certificate). The appropriate authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality or validity of the proposed transaction or the transferor's title; such matters are relevant only to the discretion whether to exercise the right of purchase.

Relevance Defines the narrow scope of the appropriate authority's function under sections 269UC, 269UD and 269UL; repeatedly followed, including in DLF Universal.