AVNASH KANI Vs. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13-9-2007 (Annexure P. 17) passed by the Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), whereby the sale deed allegedly executed on behalf of petitioners in respect of the land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas was ordered to be registered.

(2.) THE petitioners are owners of land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas. Petitioner no. 2 has executed a General Power of attorney in respect of the land owned by the said petitioner in favour of her mother, petitioner No. 1. As per the stand of the petitioners, they entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 9 kanals 10 marlas in favour of respondent No. 2 i. e. Rakesh kumar for a sum of Rs. 6,15,000/ -. An agreement of sale was executed on 11 -3-2006 and the petitioners allegedly received a sum of Rupees One lac as an earnest money. The date for execution of the sale deed was 17-3-2006. As per the petitioner, a sum of Rupees One Thousand was spent by the petitioners, but the remaining amount of Rs. 99,000/- was deposited by petitioner no. 1 in her Savings Bank Account No. 26804 with the Punjab National Bank, jalalabad on 13-3-2006.

(3.) AS per the petitioner, though the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 17-3-2006, but respondent No. 2 told petitioner on 16-3-2006 for execution and registration of the sale deed. Petitioner no. 1 was brought in the Chamber of Rajesh bajaj, Deed Writer in the New Tehsil Complex, jalalabad where the sale deed in question was scribed. However, the sale consideration recited as paid to the petitioners was rs. 2,68,000/- but no mention was made in respect of agreement dated 11-3-2006. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner No. 1 that such sale consideration has been recited to save the stamp duty and the amount has been shown in the sale deed is according to the minimum rate fixed by the State Government for registration of the sale deed. Respondent No. 2 told petitioner No. 1 that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,15,000/-would be paid to petitioner No. 1 on completion of work. Petitioner No. 1 signed the documents on the basis of such representation under blind faith, but when petitioner No. 1 demanded the balance sale consideration from respondent No. 2, the matter was put off and the petitioners were told that the sale deed would be registered after paying the amount to her. But the amount was not paid by respondent No. 2, nor he approached the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The petitioner appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 17-3-2006 and her presence was endorsed by the sub Registrar. The deed writer also communicated to the tahsildar in respect of fraud in execution of the sale deed and snatching of the sale deed. The petitioners had made a complaint to SSP, Ferozepur on 2-4-2006, but no inquiry was made.