JUDGMENT

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent for quashing of order dated 19.07.2013 by virtue of which the request of the petitioner for conversion of leasehold right in respect of the flat No.D-1/04, Rajasthali CGHS, Pitampura, Delhi - 110034 was rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased the flat in question from one Sh.Ramesh Kumar Mahajan for a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs on the basis of GPA & Agreement to Sell. The e-stamp papers amounting to Rs. 1 lakh for execution of these documents are purported to have been purchased by the petitioner on 29.09.2011 and thereafter the GPA and the Agreement to Sell were executed on 03.10.2011. Simultaneously possession of the flat in question was also handed over to the petitioner and the consideration exchanged. The petitioner applied for registration of these documents to the respondent No.2 on 03.10.2011 itself and after completion of the formalities, the documents of sale by way of registration of GPA & Agreement to Sell were actually registered by the respondent No.2 on 13.10.2011. On 28.12.2011, the petitioner submitted the application for conversion of rights in the property in question from leasehold to freehold and as she did not hear anything from respondent No.1, she became apprehensive that her application would be rejected in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs. State of Haryana in SLP(C) No.13917/2009 decided on 11.10.2011. Accordingly, on 10.04.2013, she wrote to the respondent No.1 bringing to their knowledge the fact that her case is not covered by the judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) although the transaction of sale in question was registered on 13.10.2011. But once the transaction is registered, then it relates back to the date when the GPA and the Agreement to Sell were executed. For this purpose, the petitioner drew the attention of the respondent No.1 to Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent No.1 instead of considering the case of the petitioner favourably on the basis of her written representation dated 10.04.2013, passed an order on 19.07.2013, which is impugned in the present writ petition, rejecting the request of the petitioner for conversion of rights in respect of the property in question from leasehold to freehold on the ground that the GPA and the Agreement to Sell were registered by the Sub Registrar on 13.10.2011.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, filed the present writ petition. On notice having been issued to the respondents, the respondent No.1 filed its affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner for such conversion. The respondent No.2, who is the ex officio registering authority, also filed a separate affidavit. The respondent No.2 took the plea that as they do not maintain a record, therefore, he is not able to state as to why the documents submitted by the petitioner being GPA and the Agreement to Sell, though received on 03.10.2011, were registered on 13.10.2011 and deficiencies in the documents were found which were reported to the petitioner. Even otherwise, it is contended by the respondent No.2 that Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) did not recognize the transaction of SA/GPA/Will etc. as valid documents of sale after 11.10.2011.

4. So far as the respondent No.1 is concerned, it also took the plea that after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd's case (supra), the transaction which is entered into between the petitioner and the seller on 03.10.2011 cannot be taken cognizance of because they were registered on 13.10.2011 while as the judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) was delivered on 11.10.2011.

5. I have carefully considered the submission and also gone through the record. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the documents