MAYA KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is at the instance of persons who have sales in their favour and had to confront a situation of sales being cancelled by the action of the Registrar, who acted on a complaint lodged by one Vinod Bagla, who was cited as respondent No.4. On an objection taken on behalf of the Thakurdwara claiming that the property had been at all times entered in the revenue records as belonging to the objector and it had been fraudulently dealt with through sales by a person named Thakurdass claiming to be the owner after having manipulation to change the entry from Thakurduwara to Thakurdass. In an independent objection given to the Deputy Commissioner as regards the alleged manipulations, the Deputy Commissioner had sought for an opinion on the objections taken and after taking an opinion from the District Attorney found the entries to have been wrongly made. This was, in turn, taken to be the basis by the Joint Sub-Registrar, cited as 3rd respondent to cancel the sale deeds.

(2.) In the writ petition filed, it is contended that the Registering Officer had no power to cancel the registration and the exercise of such power was illegal. The petitioner would have also a case to contend that the issue of title cannot be decided by the Registering Officer and he could not have entertained a plea that the property belonged to Thakurdass and the sale made by the vendors was not valid or was in any way an instrument of fraud to effect cancellation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-Thakurduwara supports the order passed placing reliance on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh in Fazalullah Khan Versus State of A.P. And others, 2007 AIR(AP) 57that held that fraud vitiates of proceedings and a sale which was effected by practicing fraud could be cancelled. The counsel would refer to me certain other decisions of this court and other courts which have characterized fraudulent acts as going to the root of validity of any transactions and the courts shall not give any approval to a transaction brought about by fraud. The counsel would also refer me the judgment in Jodh Singh Versus Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Ambala, 1999 1 RCR(Civ) 441where the question was whether a lunatic was competent to sell the land and if he was not, the cancellation of sale deed made will not be interfered with in a writ jurisdiction. The instances where the courts have made interventions are in situations where the Registrar's power itself was not so much of point for consideration but the parties had a scope of bringing out the manner of how the transaction was brought about as so completely vitiated that a Registrar who registers the document had literally failed to note the incompetency of persons who brought about the transaction.