Paromita Bag vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors

Shekhar B. Saraf, J

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners is aggrieved by the order of rejection dated August 26, 2019 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'IOCL') with respect to the award of LPG Distributorship at Balipur, District Hooghly (W.B) under 'SC (GP)' category advertised on 31st August, 2017.

The case of the petitioner is that the property that had been offered for showroom and godown construction had been executed and presented before the registry office on October 14, 2017. The last date for submission of the application was October 18, 2017. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the date of execution and the date of presentation before the registry office was October 14, 2017 and, therefore, the ground of rejection by the IOCL that the land that had been offered suffered from infirmities is not correct. With regard to the second issue, Mr. Roy has indicated to the Court that the eligibility certificate had been supplied to the IOCL.

Mr. Chakraborty, counsel appearing on behalf of the IOCL submitted that the registration process was completed on November 21, 2017 and the District Sub-Registrar had digitally signed and issued certificate of registration on November 21, 2017. Mr. Chakraborty relied on Section 47 read with sections 59, 60 and 61 of the Registration Act, 1908 to advance his argument that the date of issuance of certificate of registration is the date from which the petitioner could legitimately call himself the owner of the property. Mr. Chakraborty relied on two decisions, Krishna Ceramics & Anr.-vs.-Dr. V.S. Krishna Ceramics, reported in 2000 (5) ALD, 1 and Arun Bhusan Guha & Ors.-vs.-Amal Roy & Anr., delivered by this High Court in C.O. 4633 of 2006 to buttress his argument that the date of certificate of registration is the relevant date and the transfer of property to the petitioner in the interregnum period between the date of execution and the date of registration is of no consequence.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the materials on record.

Firstly, with regard to the eligibility certificate, no serious argument has been put forward by the respondents and it appears that the same was provided to the IOCL. Accordingly, this ground is not a good ground for rejection. With regard to the main ground for rejection, that is, the date of registration of both the offered lands is after the date of submission of application, one needs to examine the facts in greater detail. It is clear from the deed of lease that both the deeds were executed on October 17, 2017 at around 16.24 hours before the District Sub-Registrar, Hooghly. It is clear from the deed of lease that the registration fees and the stamp duty were paid and the deeds were presented and admitted by the registry office on October 17, 2017. On the same day, the certificate of admissibility under Rule 21 and Rule 43 of the West Bengal Registration Rule, 1962 was also issued by the District Sub-Registrar.

Consequently, on November 21, 2017, the formal certificate of registration has been digitally signed by the District Sub-Registrar.

It is trite law that once a registration is completed, the date relates back to the date of execution. In such cases, there may be a doubt that is created as to the date of passing of ownership in the interregnum period. The argument raised by Mr. Chakraborty that the petitioner did not possess the certificate of registration on the date of filing the application and, therefore, was not entitled to make the application is not legally tenable. It would have been a different matter if the deed had been presented before the registry office after the last date of making the application. In the present case, the petitioner had already completed the execution before the registry office on 14th October, 2017, three days before the last date for making the application. The fact that the registry office only provided the copies of the deeds along with the certificate of registration on November 21, 2017 cannot change the fact that the petitioner had completed all the formalities from her end prior to the concerned date of making an application before the IOCL. The entire purpose of regulation in the brochure with regard to the ownership of the land is to ensure that persons are not allowed to present a deed registered subsequent to the last date of making of the application by providing a deed executed on a previous date. If in the present case, the petitioner had presented the deeds of lease subsequent to October 17, 2017, then the same would have fallen foul to the regulations of IOCL.

The rules and regulations of the IOCL have been framed in a manner that a level playing field is made available to all applicants. The letter and spirit of the rules are not for the purpose of preventing a genuine person from making an application for the LPG distributorship. The process of registration may differ from one registry office to the other. In certain offices, once the deed is presented, the deed may be made available along with the certificate of registration on the same day or on the following day. However, certain offices may require additional time to provide the certificate of registration and the original deed. Normally, the system is that once the stamp duty and registration fees are paid, the parties are required to present the deed before the registry office and the deed is admitted. The parties are provided with the IGR copy, that is, the receipt. After a few days, on production of the IGR copy the registry office provides the certificate of registration along with the deed to the party. For all intents and purposes, once the deed is presented on the date of presentation, there is nothing left for the parties to do and the IGR is the document of title for the interregnum period till the receipt of the original deed. Even in cases of mortgage of properties by the public and the private limited banks, the procedure followed is that on the date of presentation the IGR copy is retained by the bank so that the original deed and the certificate of registration may be collected by the bank after a few days and kept with the bank as a mortgage of title deeds.

In the present case, the registration process of having the document admitted before the registry office including payment of all fees and stamp duties was completed prior to the last date of making application. Therefore, the lands offered by the petitioner cannot be rejected by the IOCL on the ground that the date of registration of both the lands are after the last date of submission. As indicated in paragraph 9, the title of the property/ lease hold rights clearly vested in the petitioner on October 14, 2017 three days before the last date of submission. Accordingly, the contention of the IOCL is rejected.

In the light of the above reasoning, the letter dated August 26, 2019 is set aside and the IOCL is directed to accept the land offered by the petitioner and proceed with the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

W.P. 17998 (W) of 2019 is, accordingly, disposed of.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.