J D PATHAK Vs. V S BAROT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India raises a short but an interesting question of law as to the power of the Sub-Registrar acting under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act) to refuse to accept for registration a document which according to the Sub-Registrar is governed by the provisions of secs. 26 and 28 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Ceiling Act).

(2.) A few relevant facts may be noted at this stage. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not holding any land more than the ceiling area and he decided to sell his land admeasruing 568.8 sq.yds. located at Rajkot to one Kusumben Amratlal Bhatt and executed the sale deed on 27 in her favour for a consideration of Rs. 1000.00. The said document was presented by the petitioner in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar Rajkot respondent No. 2 who is charged with statutory duty of registration of documents under the provisions of the Registration Act. The said document was first accepted for registration by respondent No. 2 on its production on 27-7-1981 and was given serial number 6128. But thereafter the second respondent returned the said sale deed to the petitioner with a letter dated 27-7-1981 addressed to the petitioner stating that as paid the provisions of the Transfer of Properties Act the transfre takes effect from the date of execution of the document and therefore the sale deed which the petitioner has produced can be presented for registration only after giving notice under sec. 26 of the Land Ceiling Act in view of the written instructions issued by the first respondent. District Registrar of documents Rajkot. Accordingly the second respondent directed the petitioner to present the document of sale for registration after obtaining receipt of the notice which he will have to give under sec. 26 of the Land Ceiling Act. The written instructions issued by the first respondent to all the parties presenting documents for registration in the offices of the Sub-Registrars as well as to the document writers and on the basis of which the second respondent has acted are produced on the record of the case it annexure B while the order of the second respondent refusing to accept the petitioners sale deed for registration is at annexure C to the petition.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the written instructions of the first respondent at annexure B as well as the impugned order of the third respondent at annexure V involve patent errors of law and jurisdiction and they are totally ultra vires the relevant provisions of the Registration Act as well as the Land Ceiling Act. This petition having been admitted to final hearing has reached final hearing before me today.