SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur dated April 16, 1986, whereby he refused registration of the sale-deed presented on behalf of the petitioner for registration on the ground that he has been asked not to register the sale-deeds by the Collector by his letters dated June 1, 1982 (Ex. 3) and 4-10-82 (Ex. 4) and by the Additional Collector by his letter dated January 9, 1983. The contention of the petitioner is that the Collector had no authority to issue any such letter to the Sub-Registrar and besides that, the Sub-Registrar should not have acted upon those letters and should not have refused registration of the document on the basis of such letters or communications.

(2.) WE have not been shown any law conferring any power on the Collector or the Additional Collector to issue any such directions to the Sub-Registrar. Section 68 of the Registration Act, in our opinion, does not confer any such power on the Registrar to give such directions to the Sub-Registrar. Under Section 68, the Sub-Registrar has to perform his duties under the superintendence and control of the Registrar and sub-section (2) of Section 68 empowers the Registrar to issue any order consistent with the Act which he considers necessary in respect of any act or omission on any Registrar subordinate to him and in respect of rectification of any error in the book or register in which any such document has been registered. It would appear from the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 68 that with regard to any act or omission on the part of the Sub-Registrar, the Registrar shall have authority to issue any order consistent with this Act which he considers necessary. It is not the contention on behalf of the respondents that the communications referred to in the order of the Sub-Registrar of the Collector and the Additional Collector, are in the nature of orders consistent with the provisions of the Act. WE have not been shown with any provision of the Registration Act, under which any such order could have been issued. If in any rule there is ground of refusal of registration of any document, then the Registering Officer himself is competent to refuse registration and make endorsement of refusal on the document. The Sub-Registrar, in the present case, has not acted in such a manner. He has not assigned any reason except the mentioning of three communications, two from the Collector arid one from the Additional Collector. On the basis of such communications, in our opinion, the Sub-Registrar was not justified to refuse registration. Sub-Registrar, being an authority charged with the duty of regis-tration of documents, is required to act within the frame work of the provisions of law: whether Registration Act or any other law, wherein the power is required to be exercised while acting as the Registration Officer.