SATYA PAL ANAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/applicant has challenged the tenability and sustainability of order bearing No. 3408/Takniki/ 2008, dated 15-9-2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Inspector General, Registration' Bhopal dismissing his application, filed against the order dated 28-6-2008 passed by the Sub-Registrar dismissing his application lor recording the cancellation of some registered documents, and held that under Section 69 of Registration Act (in short "the Act"), he has been vested only the powers of general superintendence over the registration offices and to make Rules in that regard and is not empowered to hear any proceedings against the order of Sub-Registrar and directed the applicant to approach the Competent Court in that regard.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioner herein filed an application dated 4-2-2008 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Bhopal for cancellation of registered documents dated 9-8-2001.21-4-2004 and 11-7-2006 registered with respect of immovable property, i.e.. Plot No. 7-B Punjabi Bagh. Raisen Road, Bhopal. According to such application such plot was allotted to his mother Smt. Veeravali Anand by respondent No. 4 Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.. Bhopal (in short "the Society"), vide sale deed dated 22-3-1962 registered on 30-3-1962, Smt. Veeravali Anand, died on 12-6-1988. Subsequent to her death the respondent No. 4-Society through it is office bearer by executing a extinguished deed dated 9-8-2001 unilaterally cancelled the aforesaid allotment and thereafter on strength of such extinguished deed against executed a registered sale deed dated 21-4-2004 in favour of respondent No. 5-Smt. Manjit Kaur who later on her turn executed another sale deed dated 11-7-2006 in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, Smt. Meenakshi and Shri S.C. Sharma. Such subsequent documents being got registered by the respondents practicing the fraud with the right of the petitioner ab initio void the prayer for recording the cancellation in the record of the same was made.

(3.) ON filing the application against such order under Section 69 of the Act before the Inspector General of Registration, the same was dismissed holding the same is not entertainable with the direction to the petitioner to approach the Competent Court in this regard, on which the petitioner has come forward with this petition.