BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 14.8.12 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.4.12 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Sri Ganganagar, refusing to register the sale deed of the agriculture land purchased by him from one Shri Sahab Singh s/o Kulwant Singh.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Sahab Singh s/o Kulwant Singh having 1/2 share in the joint khatedari land ad measuring 5.060 hectare comprising murabba No. 43, Kila No. 1 to 4, 7 to 14 and 17 to 24, sold 1.090 hectare i.e. 4 bighas and 6 biswas land in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 3 lacs, vide sale deed dated 19.4.12. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Sri Ganganagar. However, the same was returned by the Sub Registrar without registration with the endorsement "COURT STAY & EXCESS CEILING LIMIT".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registering Officer is in no way concerned with the validity of the documents presented before it for registration and therefore, the registration of the document cannot be refused even if the executant was dealing with the property not belonging to him. Learned counsel submitted that the refusal to register the documents on the part of the Sub Registrar ignoring the provisions of Rule 39 of Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules") is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the Sub Registrar in refusing to register the document without apprising the petitioner the reason therefor and giving him an opportunity of hearing, is ex facie illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Collector in the ceiling proceedings stands stayed by the Board of Revenue and therefore, even otherwise, no order directing taking over of the possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit in the hands of the person concerned, is operative as on the date. Learned counsel submitted that the entire land in the hands of the person concerned is not found to be beyond the ceiling limit and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Sub Registrar presuming the land in question to be affected by the order passed in the ceiling proceedings, is absolutely unjustified. Relying upon the decisions of this court in the matter of "Smt. Kishni Devi vs. State of Rajasthan", : 1990(2) WLN 102 and the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of "Krishna Gopal Kataria & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.", : AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 328and "Valid Family Charitable Trust & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", : AIR 2012 Punjab & Haryana 1, learned counsel submitted that the Registering Officer is empowered to refuse the registration of a document only if it is not properly executed or presented or subject matter of the document lay beyond his territorial jurisdiction, as the case may be and for no other reason.