AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing upon the respondent no. 3 - the District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad to register the sale-deed presented before him in respect of Unit No. 07(B), Lower Ground Floor having built-up area 336.42 sq.ft. and common area 134.58 sq.ft. together with roof alongwith undivided proportionate share or interest in the land relating to other units of the building known as "Capital Mall" (hereinafter referred to as "the said unit"). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to refuse registration of sale-deed of the petitioner presented in respect of the said unit as the petitioner has the ownership and possession over the said unit without objection from any corner.
The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is the owner of the land situated at Mouza-Saraidhella, Mouza No. 08, C.S Khata No. 53 (New Khata No. 296), Plot No. 2331 (New Plot No. 1723) and Mouza-Kolakusma, Mouza No. 12, C.S Khata No. 142 (New Khata No. 741), Plot No. 186 (New Plot No.284) total area measuring 1.18 acres. The jamabandi of the aforesaid land was also opened in the name of the petitioner and he is paying the rent of the same in the office of the Circle Officer, Dhanbad. The petitioner has a business of real estate and construction and has constructed a multi-storied building over the said land commonly known as "Capital Mall" after getting the plan sanctioned by the competent authority "MADA". One purchaser intended to purchase Unit No. 07(B), Lower Ground Floor comprising of built-up area of 336.4 sq.ft. and common area of 134.58 sq.ft. together with roof alongwith the undivided proportionate share or interest relating to other units in the land of the building known as "Capital Mall" and as such an agreement to sale was prepared on 20.05.2020 and was presented before the respondent no. 3 for registration of the same in the name of the purchaser, however, the same has been kept pending without assigning any reason for the same. Hence, the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondent no. 3 is arbitrary and illegal and shows the colourable exercise of power as on the one hand, the respondent no. 3 has been approving for registration of sale-deed of other persons, but with respect to the petitioner, the same is kept pending that too, without assigning any reason for the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner has shown its entire legal documents relating to the ownership and possession of the land in question to the respondent no. 3, but the respondent no. 3 has arbitrarily not performed his statutory duty at his own whims due to which the petitioner has greatly been prejudiced. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 3 has no right to sit tight over the matter of registration of the instrument presented before him i.e., an agreement to sale pertaining to the property in question without assigning any valid and legal reason as Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides for recording reasons for refusal to register any document. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 3 is under legal obligation to give notice to the petitioner with respect to any action intended to be taken by him in this regard. The petitioner has also the right of being heard before any adverse decision is taken by the respondent no. 3 in relation to the presented document. The respondent no. 3 has no authority to prevent the petitioner from selling any part of the property in question to anyone without there being any order of competent court or authority to that effect.
Mr. Manav Poddar, the learned AC to AAG-I, has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner through its all of the three directors as a first party and purchaser Urmila Devi Dokania as second party have presented an agreement to sale for its registration before the respondent no. 3, however, the same has been kept pending by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that after presenting the said instrument/document before the respondent no. 3, he has neither registered it nor has assigned any reason for refusal of the same.
To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused Section 71 of the Act, 1908 which reads as under:
Reasons of refusal to register to be recorded.-(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.
(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."
On bare perusal of the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908, it would be evident that if the District Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document, he is required to pass an order of refusal by recording his reasons for the same in the relevant book with an endorsement on the document that the registration has been refused. Section 72 of the Act, 1908 also provides a forum of appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration.
Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1908, it may be construed that the District Sub-Registrar on presentation of document before him, cannot keep the same pending without any reason and if he does not intend to register the document so presented for any valid reason, he has to pass an order of refusal of registration with an endorsement on the document that the registration has been refused.
In the case in hand, since the petitioner through its directors and the above named purchaser have presented the agreement to sale before the respondent no. 3 for registration on 20.05.2020, the respondent no. 3 cannot keep the registration of the same pending. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 3 is directed either to admit the agreement to sale presented before him by the petitioner for registration or to refuse the registration of the same by passing an order in terms with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908. The respondent no. 3 is directed to conclude the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observation/direction.