SURINDRA SOOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has made a grievance in the instant writ petition against respondents 2 and 3 in having failed to act in accordance with the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as the Act).

(2.) It is stated that a deed of conveyance was executed by the petitioner, transferring and conveying her right, title and interest in relation to property, namely, basement of the house known as Triveni, Shimla, along -with l/3rd share in the land on which the aforesaid property is built, situate within Station Ward Bara Shimla, in favour of her son Ashok Sood, on 27th October, 1993. It was presented for registration before respondent No. 3, so as to enable the said respondent to register the same under the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that respondent No. 3, after obtaining signature of the petitioner on the back of first page of the deed of conveyance, apprised the petitioner that the document would be registered in due course, after seeking approval/instructions from his superiors, namely, respondent No. 2 and when respondent No. 2, was approached, both respondents 2 and 3 insisted upon the petitioner that it would be appropriate for the petitioner and her son to seek the requisite permission of the State Government for transfer of the property, in accordance with the provisions of section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (hereinafter called as the Tenancy ˜Act). Despite the petitioners informing them that no such permission was required, since it was neither land within the ambit of section 118 of the Tenancy Act, nor the transfer was in favour of non -agriculturist, since the transferee was the vendors son, no such permission was required, respondents 2 and 3 failed to discharge their statutory obligation under the provisions of the Act. It is also stated in the petition that both the respondents were apprised of the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. 88 of 1991. Nirmal Singh v. Randhir Sharma, decided on 6th July, 1993 but they instead of acting in accordance with law have failed to discharge their statutory obligation. Consequently, a direction is sought against the respondents for registering the document, copy of which is Annexure P -I.

(3.) Respondents were called upon to file the reply. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents on the affidavit of Mr. P. C. Pharka, Registrar (Collector), Shimla District. In the reply it is not disputed that the deed of conveyance (copy Annexure P -I) was presented for registration before respondent No. 3 and also that a copy of the judgment in R.F.A. 88/91, was also cited by the petitioner, but the petitioner was informed that clarification and guidance has been sought by respondents 2 and 3 from the Inspector General of Registration, Himachal Pradesh and from the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Revenue Department) and final decision with regard to that was still awaited. It is not averred that for this reason the document has not been registered.