The court upheld the refusal to register documents due to ongoing consolidation proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining prior NOC from the Consolidation Officer as required by relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 i.e., petitioner No.1 Sh. Mahavir Singh, petitioner No.2 Smt. Urmila, petitioner No.3 Smt. Reena Rani and petitioner No.4 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, vide the present petition seeks directions to the respondent No.5, the Sub-Registrar IX (A) (Najafgarh) to register the Sale Agreement and the General Power of Attorney both dated 01.05.2018 duly executed and presented by the petitioners before the respondent No.5 vide document Nos. 320 and 321, after setting aside the impugned refusal order dated 17.05.2018 of the respondent No.5 as well as the order of the respondent No.3, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, South-West, Kapashera in Appeal No.1/7/18 dated 07.10.2020, whereby the said appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 was dismissed, with it having been submitted by the petitioners that the said orders are arbitrary, unwarranted, perverse, beyond jurisdiction and in violation of law resulting in manifest injustice to the petitioners.

2. The petitioners also seek exemplary cost against the respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of Registrars, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi, submitting to the effect that the said authority is vicariously responsible for non-discharge of duty by the subordinate authorities.

3. The consolidation proceedings in village Mundhela Khurd in the year 1971-72 were initiated and the consolidation record was prepared but repartition proceedings under Section 21 of the EPH Act, 1948 could not be carried out and the consolidation proceedings were initiated again in 1996, and as per averments made in the petition, are pending before the Financial Commissioner.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 is a native of village Mundhela Khurd and was the recorded co-owner of un-partitioned agriculture land having 1/15th share (61.56 Biswa) out of Khata No. 106/99 bearing pre-consolidation Khasra nos. 1//105(5-09), 1/161 (0-09), 1/389(19-03), 1//349 (4-15), 1//348 ((7-14), 1//516 (3-14) & 1/634 (5-01) total land admeasuring 46 Bigha 5 Biswa or post consolidation Khasra Nos. 38//4/2 (1-02), 54//8 (4-16) and 54//9/1 (2-16) total land admeasuring 8 Bigha 14 Biswa (2 Bigha 18 Biswa) of land situated in revenue estate of village Mundhela Khurd, Delhi-110073. Copy of the Fard has been submitted by the petitioners as Annexure P-1.

5. inter alia, the petitioners further submit that the petitioner No.1, the seller, and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 3, the purchasers, entered into an oral sale agreement of agriculture un-partitioned land dated 22/10/2013 for total sale consideration amount to the extent of Rs.28,90,625/- of the entire 1/15th share (61.66 Biswa) out of Khata No. 106/99 bearing pre-consolidation Khasra nos. 1//105(5-09), 1//161 (0-09), 1/389(19-03), 1//349 (4-15), 1//348 ((7-14), 1//516 (3-14) & 1/634 (5-01) total land admeasuring 46 Bigha 5 Biswa or 1/3rd share out of Post consolidation Khasra No. 38//4/2 (1-02), 54//8 (4-16) and 54//9/1 (2-16) total land admeasuring 8 Bigha 14 Biswa (2 Bigha 18 Biswa) of land situated in revenue estate of village Mundhela Khurd for his bona-fide needs.

6. The petitioners further submit that vide a circular No. F.1(92)/Regn Br./DivComm./HQ/2012, which is dated 12.11.2014 (and bears the full number F.1(92)/RB/DivComm./HQ/2012/311-320), in terms of Para 18 Sub Para II of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp Industries Vs State of Haryana, the respondent no. 2, the Inspector General of Registrar, from the office of Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue, Government of Delhi, 5,