RAMDEO RAI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.2.1986 passed by respondent District Sub Registrar, Vaishali at Hajipur, by which he has allowed the appeal filed by the Private respondent Ram Chandra Rai and further directed compulsory registration of the sale deed, as contained in Annexure 1 to this writ application, and also the notice dated 30th September, 1986 issued by the respondent Collector whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay the deficit Court fees as well as the penalty to the tune of Rs. 3,898.40 paise.

(2.) THE fact of this case, in short, is that the petitioner has executed a sale deed with respect to the peace of land bearing R.S. Khata No. 11 and R.S. Plot No. 212 measuring an area of 7 decimals, situated in village Sistaul, P.S. Tisiautta, District Vaishali, in favour of private respondent No. 4 on 1st January, 1979. It is alleged that necessary stamp for registration of the sale deed was purchased on 30.12.78. It is further alleged that the deed was left with scribe and the parties agreed to produce the document for registration on payment of the consideration of the money by respondent No. 4. It is alleged that since the amount has not been paid despite of several requests made to the respondent, the petitioner ultimately sold the said land through registered sale deed dated 24.12.79. It has, however, been alleged that respondent No. 4 has presented the deed for registration before the Sub Registrar, Mahua on 29.1.80 for compulsory registration, copy of the deed has been made Annexure 1 to this writ application. The respondent Sub Registrar, Mahua, has refused the registration of the deed, in question, since the petitioner did not appear before him, copy of the order is made Annexure 2 to this writ application. The private respondent being aggrieved by the said order of the Sub Registrar has filed an appeal before the respondent District Sub Registrar and pursuant to the notice issued by the appellate authority, the petitioner appeared and filed objection firstly on the ground that respondent No. 4 made an interpolation in the deed in question with regard to the date and changed the actual date of execution from 1.1.79 to 10.10.79 and the second objection was raised that no consideration money was paid by the respondent. The respondent District Sub Registrar while upholding the first objection has allowed the appeal and sent the deed, in question, to the Sub Registrar, Mahua, with a direction to register the document compulsorily since the adequate court fees were not affixed on the sale deed. The respondent District Sub Registrar has also referred the matter to the respondent Collector for realisation of the deficit court fees. The respondent Collector on receipt of the requisition has issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to pay the deficit court fees as well as the penalty to the tune of Rs. 3898.40 paise, as stated above. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondent.

(3.) BEFORE , I part with this case I may observe that a specific statement has been made in paragraph 3 to this writ application that since the respondent has failed to pay the consideration money, the petitioner has already sold the land, in question, through registered sale deed dated 24th December, 1979, i.e. much before the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court, as quoted above, and also before the orders passed, as contained in Annexures 2 and 3. Accordingly, I am not inclined to express any opinion as to the effect of the order passed by this Court, as quoted above, and the law will take its own course.