TARA SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was admittedly the owner of the property in SCO No.8, Sector 20, a commercial property situate in Chandigarh. One Harnek Singh claimed himself to be a power of attorney of the petitioner and purports to have transferred the property in favour of one O.P. Mittal. On a complaint by the petitioner that the power of attorney was a fabrication, the Collector, UT, Chandigarh, appears to have undertaken an enquiry and found the power of attorney to be fabricated and it appears that the enquiry had yielded to a prima facie finding that there was a case made for taking action for commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 472 IPC. The consideration said to have been passed under the sale Rs. 35 lakhs is reported to have been paid back to the buyer.

(2.) The cause for the action is that when the petitioner executed a sale deed on 24.06.2013 and presented the same before the Chandigarh Administration for registration, the registration was declined on the ground that there exists already a sale in relation to the property in favour of O.P. Mittal and hence, unless the sale deed in favour of O.P. Mittal is set aside, fresh registration sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

(3.) Refusal to register a transaction falls under Part XII of the Registration Act, 1908 that enjoins that request for refusal to register is bound to be recorded and a registration for refusal shall be endorsed in his Book No.2. Section 72 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Registrar from orders of Sub-Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution. Under Section 73 where the Sub Registrar declines to register on the ground of denial of execution, a person claiming under the document could have a remedy through an application to the Registrar. The petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that since there exists a sale deed in relation to the same property and two sale deeds cannot be made in respect of the said property. The petitioner has resorted to a challenge by a writ without filing a suit in the manner contemplated under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The petitioner's contention is that the Chandigarh Administration has no right to rake up an issue relating to the validity or otherwise of the sale which is presented before it and it cannot insist that the petitioner must seek for any cancellation of the sale deed. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh Administration would contend that even apart from the objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petition when there exists a specific manner of reappraisal of grievance by resort to a suit under Section 77, it is urged by the Administration that Section 31 of Specific Relief Act prescribes a procedure for cancellation of a sale deed and the petitioner ought to resort such an exercise.