KISHNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for directing the Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) to register the sale-deed dated 15/05/1987 (Annexure-2). The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) The vendors Parasmal and Sardarmal Kankaria, Queens Park, Calcutta agreed to sell their small piece of land measuring 57 sq. meters situated near Isolation Hospital, Jodhpur for Rs. 500.00- to the petitioner. On 15/05/1987 the holder of their general Power of Attorney, Rajesh Lodha, executed the sale-deed Annexure-2 on requisite stamps in favour of the petitioner. On 14/07/1987, he presented it before the Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur for its registration and deposited the requisite registration charges through the receipt Annexure-1. The Sub-Registrar summoned the executant (Rajesh Lodha) for 15/09/1987, he appeared before him and admitted the execution of the sale-deed Annexure 2. The Sub-Registrar completed all the formalities required under Secs. 34, 35, 58 and 59 of the Registration Act (hereinafter to be called 'the Act'). On 31/03/1987 the executant had given a notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Competent Authority intimating about the said proposed sale. It did not exercise option to purchase the said land as provided under S. 26(2) of the aforesaid Act. The Sub-Registrar did not register the sale-deed and kept it pending. Writ Petition No. 1381 / 88 was filed. On 22/08/1988, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar to decide the question of registration of the said sale-deed within a period of 10 days. In compliance thereof, the Sub-Registrar passed order Annexure 4/08/1988 refusing the registration of the document for want of clarification from the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. An appeal was filed against his order before the District Registrar, Jodhpur (respondent No. 3). He rejected it by his order dated 5/12/1988 (Annexure 5) on the grounds that it is the duty of registering authority to see that the orders of the Government issued from time to time are complied with, the provisions of the Act are not infringed, the Power of Attorney executed by the Venders in favour of Rajesh Lodha has been cancelled by 16/05/1987 and he had no authority to present the sale deed for its registration or admitting its execution.

(3.) Despite seeking several adjournments for filing reply, it has not been filed by any respondent. On 9/01/1989, Smt. Sudesh Kakkar moved an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that she is in actual and physical possession of the land which has been sold through the sale deed Annexure 2. The same day the application was dismissed by this Court. On 22/08/1990, she moved another application for being impleaded as an intervenor.