MANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That by this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the with-holding of document of sale by the Sub-Registrar (Stamps and Registration), Beawar, District Ajmer and is seeksing writ of Mandamus to the Sub-Registrar (Stamps and Registration) to immediately deliver the duly registered sale-deed Ex.1 annexed to the writ petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a property in the city of Beawar vide sale-deed dated 21.8.1995 from one Shri Vashisht Prasad Mishra son of Shri Ram Kripal Mishra for a consideration of Rs. 1,99,000/-. Said Shri Vashisht Prasad Mishra (Vendor) presented the document of sale-deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, rawer on 21.8.1995. While presenting the document for registration, all formalities were complied with under Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The said Vashisht Prasad Mishra personally appeared before the Sub-Registrar respondent No. 2 on 21.8.1995, but the same has not been returned after registration. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 2, who admitted the aforesaid document for registration, inspected the property under transfer and accepted the valuation of the property sold and further found that the stamp duty payable was sufficient.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed the receipt of the document and completion of the formalities in their reply. However, it is submitted by the respondents that on 22.8.1995 a letter from the Commercial Taxes Officer, Beawer, intimating therein that the property was under attachment was received and the same could not have been registered in view of the Notification dated 10.1.1990. After receipt of the said reply, the petitioner has impleaded the Commercial Taxes Officer as a party to the petition and the Commercial Taxes Officer has also filed reply repeating the said submissions. Copy of the Notification dated 10.1.1990 has not been annexed by the respondents. However, the same was produced by the petitioner in the Court which reads as follows: