Allowed

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Dy. Commr. Ambala and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2012CWP/88/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that a registering authority cannot refuse registration of a sale deed based on ownership disputes or the claim that land is 'Shamlat deh' as such inquiries are outside the Registrar's domain under the Registration Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.12.2004 set aside; Respondent directed to register sale deeds within three months.

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. Vs Dy. Commr. Ambala and… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 88 of 2005

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.88 of 2005

¶5

Date of decision: 15.02.2012

¶6

Ranjeet Singh and another

¶7

-----Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Rajeev Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

¶14

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶15

The sale deeds executed by the petitioners having been refused to be registered in favour of the vendees, they have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2004, Annexure P.8.

¶16

Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The land in dispute is comprised in Khewat No.3, Khatauni No.5/6, Khasra Nos. 62, total measuring 32 kanals 12 marlas, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, as per jamabandi for the year 19992000. In the column of ownership, the land has been recorded in the name of one Tikka Parduman Singh son of Rao Prithi Singh son of Rao Baldev Singh and others. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are owners in possession of land measuring 1 marla and two marlas respectively out of this land. The petitioners had purchased the said piece of land from

¶17

CWP No. 88 of 2005

¶18

¶19

its original previous owner namely Kanwar Nagender Singh son of Rao Prithi Singh vide registered sale deed dated 29.4.1997. Now in order to sell their land, both the petitioners presented their sale deeds on 22.3.2002 in the office of respondent No.2 after affixing the stamp duty etc. Since no action was taken by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 made a representation to him on 10.4.2002. Respondent No.2 referred the matter to the Registrar, Ambala for clarification. The Registrar in turn referred back the case to respondent No.2 to decide the same as per law but still the sale deeds had not been registered. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No.8046 of 2002 in this Court. Vide order dated 27.1.2003, Annexure P.6, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The petitioners moved an application dated 25.10.2004, Annexure P.7 before respondent No.2 alongwith the documents. On 16.12.2004, Annexure P.8, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order refusing to register the sale deeds. Hence this petition.

¶20

According to the learned counsel, the petitioners had purchased the property from Kanwar Nagender Singh son of Rao Prithi Singh, owner of the land in the year 1997 and the instrument of transfer was registered by the Sub Registrar, Naraingarh, District Ambala, respondent No.2. However, when the petitioners sought to transfer the same land, the authority refused to register the sale deeds on twin grounds - (a) description of the property was not given and (ii) property was Shamlat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) of

¶21

CWP No. 88 of 2005

¶22

¶23

the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, “the 1908 Act”) to submit that the requirements as envisaged thereunder stood complied with and the Sub Registrar could not refuse registration of the sale deeds. The description of the property had been duly incorporated in the sale deeds. On the strength of Division Bench decision of this Court in Hari Singh and another v. Sub Registrar, Narnaul and others, ( 1998) 3 PLR 787, it was contended that question of ownership could not be delved into by Sub Registrar while exercising jurisdiction with regard to registration of the property. He had no authority to refuse registration on that ground.

¶25

Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel referred to Annexure R.1 to submit that the Registrar, Ambala had addressed a communication to Sub Registrar, Naraingarh on 8.12.2004 stating that the land in dispute was Shamlat as it was kept for use for common purposes and thus, vested in the Gram Panchayat and could not be sold.

¶26

After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions, I find that no justifiable reason has been given for not registering the documents.

¶27

It would be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1908 Act. Under Section 21 of the 1908 Act, the description of the property i.e. maps or plan are required to be appended. Section 23 of the said Act prescribes for time within which the document after

¶28

CWP No. 88 of 2005

¶29

¶30

its execution is to be presented for registration. Section 28 thereof deals with place for registering documents. Under Section 32 of the statute, the persons competent to present documents for registration have been prescribed. Section 34 of the 1908 Act deals with the enquiry before registration whereas under Section 71, the registering authority is required to give reasons for refusing to register by recording the same on the instrument.

¶31

The Division Bench in Hari Singh's case (supra) in para 9 after analysing the provisions of the 1908 Act had noticed that it did not fall within the domain of the registering authority to embark into the question of ownership when document is presented for registration. It recorded thus:-

¶32

“9. The Registration Act itself is a complete code. All reasons have been specifically enumerated under Sections 21,23, 28, 32 and 35 of the Act for which a Sub Registrar or the registrar may refuse to register the sale deed and other documents required to be registered under the Act. The Act nowhere provides that the Sub Registrar/Registrar can refuse to register the lease deed/sale deed pertaining to a property the ownership of which is in question. It does not fall within the domain of the registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject matter of the deed of conveyance. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not thought it proper to make such a provision in the Act authorizing the registrar/Sub Registrar to make a probe into the ownership of the property sought to be transferred in any manner. The provisions of section 34 of the Act empowered the registering Officer to make inquiry before registration of a document. The

¶33

CWP No. 88 of 2005

¶34

¶35

Registering officer has the right to make inquiry whether or not such document was accepted by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and to satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assignee or agent satisfy himself of the right of such person to appear.”

¶36

It was not disputed that the property belonged to Nagender Singh who had sold the same to the petitioners in the year 1997. At that time, while registering the sale deed, no objection was raised that the same belonged to Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the State was unable to substantiate the plea with reference to any material or document that the property vested in the Gram Panchayat. In the absence of the same, the objection regarding ownership could not be justified. Further, the description of the property was in the terms as it was described when the property was purchased by the petitioners from its erstwhile owner Nagender Singh son of Rao Prithi Singh which sale deed had been registered by the authorities. The State could not justify the action with reference to the provisions of the Act by virtue of which the registration of the sale deeds could be denied.

¶37

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2004, Annexure P.8 is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the sale deeds within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge

¶39

February 15, 2012 ‘gs’

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Dy. Commr. Ambala and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. v. Dy. Commr. Ambala and Ors.

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

Raja Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

M/S Om Shanti Filling Station Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Sinh Dhaliwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Lalit Mohan Chadha Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhvir Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon and Anr.