RAJDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks direction to the Collector-cum-District Registrar (within the meaning of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in short 'the Act'), Begusarai or, alternatively, to the Sub-Registrar, Begusarai to register sale deed dated 30-3-88 executed by respondent No. 4 Ram Chandra Rai in his favour. He also seeks quashing of the order of the Collector, Begusarai dated 24-10-96 in Misc. Case No. 27 of 1995 recalling his previous order dated 28-7-95 by which he had directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed.

(2.) The relevant facts as set out in the writ petition are these. Respondent No. 4 executed a sale deed with respect of 13 kathas, 19 dhurs of land situated at Village Mohanpur within Bakhri Police Station of Begusarai District in favour of the petitioner on 30-3-88. On 30-3-88 the petitioner along with respondent No. 4 went to the Registration Office at Begusarai and presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar for registration. However, respondent No. 4 did not appear to admit the execution of the document nor deposited the cost of registration. The petitioner deposited the registration cost of 13-5-88 and filed an application before the Sub-Registrar to compel the appearance of respondent No. 4. The Sub-Registrar issued summons to respondent No. 4 asking him to appear on 15-7-88 to either admit or deny the execution of the document. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 received the summons on 10-7-88 but refused to acknowledge the receipt. The Sub-Registrar by his order dated 22-7-88 held that non-appearance of the executant amounted to denial of execution of the document and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, the document could not be registered. The Sub-Registrar thus refused to register the sale deed on the ground of denial of execution.

(3.) The petitioner preferred appeal before the District Registrar-cum-Collector, Begusarai against the said order of the Sub-Registrar dated 22-7-88 purportedly under Section 72 of the Act which was registered as Registration Appeal No. 34 of 1988. The Collector vide his order dated 28-7-95 had observed that the signature of respondent No. 4 on the document and the Vakalatnama did not tally. As, however, the respondent had failed to personally appear, he closed the proceeding observing, curiously, that the respondent failed to prove his signature. The sale deed was returned to the Sub-Registrar. According to the petitioner, the return of the document to the Sub-Registrar amounted to direction to register the document under Section 72 (2) of the Act. The Sub-Registrar, however, did not take the required steps. Instead, while responding to letter of the Collector dated 7-9-95, he pointed out that the order dated 28-7-95 did not direct the document in question to be registered, and in the absence of any specific order to that effect, it was not permissible under the law to register the same. The petitioner filed an application before the Collector to clarify his previous order dated 28-7-95 and issue suitable direction to the Sub-Registrar. Instead of giving any direction of the kind, the Collector by the impugned order dated 24-10-96 recalled the said order dated 28-7-95. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has come to this Court seeking the aforementioned reliefs.