Allowed

Tehsil Bar Association and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019WPIL/5133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL challenging an order by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, that stopped registration of sale documents for alleged illegal colonies. The court held the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to restrain registration under the Registration Act and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad set aside; petitioners awarded cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Tehsil Bar Association and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 5133 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Tehsil Bar Association And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Prakash Mishra,Anoop Trivedi,Pradeep Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5. Petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavits to aforesaid counter affidavits as well as a supplementary affidavit. All the affidavits are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Subash Rathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶8

Petitioners are aggrieved by an order issued by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 04.12.2018 whereby registration of documents of sale of certain properties of 321 colonies, alleged to be illegal colonies, has been stopped by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

¶9

Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that District Magistrate has no such power and if the document is presented before Sub Registrar for registration, satisfying all the requirements under Registration Act,1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1908') and the Rules framed there under, Registration Authority cannot deny to register the document only on the ground that the District Magistrate has imposed a restriction thereon.

¶10

In the counter affidavit also we find that respondent 3 has taken a stand that order of District Magistrate dated 04.12.2018 is illegal. In para 5 it has referred to letter of I.G. Registration dated 07.01.2019 wherein it has been communicated to District Magistrate that direction issued by her vide order dated 04.12.2018 to Sub Registrar for not registering the document is illegal and not in accordance with law and District Magistrate has no such power to restrain the Sub Registrar.

¶11

Reference is also made to an earlier decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.70786 of 2011 decided on 08.03.2013 wherein also similar direction, issued by District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on 20.05.2011 putting restriction on transfer of

¶12

property by owners of certain lands was set aside.

¶13

Respondent 3 has also referred to the Supreme Court decision in T. Vijayalakshmi and others versus Town Planning Member and Another, 2006 (8) SCC 502 wherein a similar view has been taken and referred to the same.

¶14

Third decision referred by respondent 3 is of a Division Bench of this Court in Dhanpal Singh and Others versus Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand, 2002 (4) AWC 3290 wherein similar order issued by Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand restraining Sub Registrar not to register sale deed of certain lands alleging that the same was acquired by State, was declared to be illegal.

¶15

Learned Additional Advocate General stated that the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by District Magistrate is not defendable and is definitely without jurisdiction.

¶16

It is said that in passing the impugned order there was no otherwise intention but to protect the interest of public from entering into transaction relating to building unauthorizedly construction. In our view there would have been various other ways by which public may be apprised not to enter into transaction relating to properties which are illegally and unauthorizedly constructed, but in regard to the matters which are governed by statute, no executive order beyond the scope of statue is permissible.

¶17

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is set aside.

¶18

Petitioners shall be entitled to cost which we quantify to Rs.5,000/-.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.1.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Tehsil Bar Association and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tehsil Bar Association and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhil Bharat Varshiya Gond Mahasabha Unit Ballia and Another Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Janana Mandal Ltd. Vs Nepa Ltd.

Dinesh Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

M/S Bucheye Batteries P.Ltd. on Behalf of Khalid Mukhtar Vs Official Liquidator Attached to the High Court Ald. and Others

Ex-Jwo Harikesh Pandey Vs Union of India Thru Secy and Others