ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 231 and 339 of 1986 and 409 of 1994 are decided as common question of law is involved therein. LPA Nos. 231 and 339 of 1986 are against the same judgment passed in the CWP No. 1706 of 1985. LPA No. 231 of 1986 is filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala (exercising the powers of Registrar under the Indian Registration Act) and Sub Registrar, under the Indian Registration Act, Patiala, while LPA No. 339 of 1986 is filed by these two appellants along with the State of Punjab. In LPA No. 231 of 1986 the State of Punjab is shown as respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE facts of LPA Nos. 231 and 339 of 1986 are same as in that case the lease deed (Annexure P-l) presented by the writ petitioner-respondents was not registered by the appellant Sub Registrar in view of the executive instructions (Annexures P-3 and P-5) issued in pursuance of Farman-i-shahi (Annexure R-l ). In LPA No. 409 of 1994 the sale deed presented for registration by the petitioner-respondents was not registered by the Sub Registrar, Patiala, by order dated April 29,1993 (Annexure P-l) in view of the executive instructions (Annexures P-2 and P3) issued in pursuance of the Farman-i-Shahi. The appeals filed by the petitioner-respondents were also dismissed by the appellant-Registrar.

(3.) TO appreciate the point in controversy, English translation of Farman-i-Shahi is reproduced below in extenso: