KAMLESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Shreyas Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client inherited half share in the property. Respondent nos.3 to 5 are his cousins and respondent no.6, purported purchaser of almost their entire aggregate half share. He relies on Sec. 22 in Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and submits, his client has preferential right to acquire the property, when his cousins decide to sell their shares.

(2.) Challenge in the writ petition is against respondent no.2, (the Sub-Registrar), in having illegally registered the sale deed dtd. 2/4/2025. He draws attention to the deed and submits, vendors described therein were represented by respondent no.3. Though there is mention of power of attorney dtd. 17/10/2024, the Sub-Registrar abdicated his duty mandated by sub-sec. (3) in Sec. 34 of Registration Act, 1908 in not refusing registration. He relies on clause (c) in the sub-sec. . The sale deed does not bear signature of the other vendors. The Sub-Registrar thus, as appears on face of the document, did not satisfy himself that the executor appearing as representative of respondent nos.4 and 5, had the right to so appear and present the document for registration. He also relies on rule 285 in Uttar Pradesh Registration Manual. Sec. 34 and the rule are reproduced below. Sec. 34 in Registration Act, 1908.

(3.) On query Mr. Srivastava submits, cancellation of the registration is not same as declaring the document to be null and void. His client is challenging administrative act of the authority in not having duly exercised the same, on omission to make enquiry in respect of it under Sec. 34, to register the document, which ought not to have been registered. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and Others dealt with on judgment dtd. 4/5/2022 (Civil Appeal nos. 2752-2753 of 2022), paragraph 53 in Live Law print. The paragraph is reproduced below.