RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2010, passed by respondent No. 3 District Registrar/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Firozabad be issued and a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Sub-Registrar, Sadar and Tehslldar, Sadar, Firozabad respectively from making any changes in the registered instrument in Book No. 3, Section 46, Serial No. 150 at pages 345 and 356, the Will executed by the testator Late Krishna Murari Gupta, be issued and a further writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 from lodging any criminal prosecution against the petitioner be also issued.

(2.) We have heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddhartha Srivastava for respondent No. 6 and the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner and grandfather of the respondent No. 6 Aman Gupta, had executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 6 whereby he bequeathed 28136 sq. feet of land in favour of the petitioner and 12417 sq. ft. of land in favour of the respondent No. 6. The Will was duly registered before Sub-Registrar, Sadar, Firozabad (respondent No. 4) in the presence of the testator Sri Krishna Murari Gupta who later on expired on 1.1.2009, it is transpired to the petitioner that Aman Gupta (respondent No. 6), in collusion with the scribe of the Will and attesting witnesses of the Will, manufactured page Nos. 3 to 5 of the Will where the details regarding bequeathing of the property in favour of the petitioner was mentioned and the said pages were replaced showing the entire property bequeathed in favour of respondent No. 6. Thereafter, the said Will was utilized by the respondent No. 6 for mutation of his name in the municipal records on 26.2.2009. The petitioner lodged a complaint before respondent No. 3 the District Registrar, Firozabad regarding alleged forgery committed by respondent No. 6, inter alia requesting to take suitable action against the guilty persons. The District Registrar ordered to the Sub-Registrar for immediately sealing the record. District Registrar called the parties, recorded the statements of Tax Superintendent of Nagar Palika Parishad, Har Govind Singh, the petitioner and respondent No. 6. A written brief of Ashok Kumar Gupta was also taken on record and the statement of the scribe and of the two attesting witnesses were also got recorded by the District Registrar, but there is no opportunity afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine any of the witness recorded by the District Registrar nor the petitioner was supplied the copy of the objections submitted by respondent No. 6. District Registrar/Additional District Magistrate passed the impugned order thereby directing that pages No. 3 to 5 as have come from the custody of respondent No. 6 being the original pages of the Will thereof, be replaced with the original page Nos. 3 to 5 pasted in the books of the Sub-Registrar. The District Registrar has also directed to take action against the Tax Superintendent, Nagar Palika Parishad, Har Govind Singh and penal action against the petitioner. The impugned order suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record besides being arbitrary, illegal and without Jurisdiction. Neither the respondent No. 3 who is a district officer passed the impugned order in the capacity of Registrar as contemplated under Section 6 of the Registration Act nor, he was empowered to act as a Court thereby proceeding and to adjudicate upon the alleged dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and there was no authority vested in respondent No. 3 to alter a registered instrument. Registrar has very limited powers, merely to correct certain ministerial errors with respect to any act or omission of any Sub-Registrar regarding the books kept in the office of Sub-Registrar as per provision under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act. The respondent No. 3 disbelieved the petitioner merely for the reasons that the petitioner has not raised any objection in the period of 10 years after the Will registered. Such finding recorded by respondent No. 3 is perverse and contrary to the provisions contained under the Indian Succession Act.