JAY JITENDRA NANDHA Vs. SUB-REGISTRAR KHANDAGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted thirteen complaints are analogous. The facts of each case are similar. The point of law involved in all the cases is the same. Therefore, they were all heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) We need not narrate facts of each case. For the sake of convenience, we mention only the facts relating to C. D. Case No.51 of 2005. The petitioner alleges that the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri-opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency in service by not returning to him the registered sale deed. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a piece of land measuring 620 sq. ft. in Mouza Nayapalli for consideration of Rs.80,000 from one Prakash Chandra Bhura vide sale deed No.4129 dated 30.5.2000 registered in the office of the opposite party No.1. He paid a sum of Rs.1,618 towards the fees for registration. As honest purchaser, Rs.80,000 was paid to the seller. It being the actual price of the land, he has mentioned the same in the sale deed as the consideration amount. Sub-section 2 of Sec.61 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that after registration of the document is complete, the same shall be returned to the person, who presented the same for registration. Although the law requires the opposite party No.1 to return the sale deed to the petitioner after it was registered, he instead of doing so, is sitting over the matter. According to the petitioner this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. He states that he is a consumer since he had paid fees for getting the document registered and non-return of the document amounts to deficiency in service on his part.

(3.) The Sub-Registrar, who is the contesting opposite party No.1, has not filed his written version. Mr. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for him has produced before us copy of the parawise comments. We have taken the parawise comments on record and treated the same as his written version.