Imposition of registration penalty is unjustified if delay is not attributable to the executant, as established in the Indian Registration Act and supported by case law.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Krishan Chand Gupta seeking directions to the Respondents i.e., Respondent No.1 - Sub-Registrar VI-B, Alipur, Delhi, Respondent No.2 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narela, and Respondent No.3 - Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (DSIIDC), to register the lease deed in question, without demanding an amount equal to six times of the prescribed registration fee.

3. The brief chronology of events is that the Petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No.1, Pocket-1, Sector-1, admeasuring 250 sq. mtr. at DSIIDC, Bawana, Delhi, vide allotment in the name of M/s. Krishna Wire Industries, which is stated to a sole proprietary concern of the Petitioner. In the month of July/August, 2010, the Petitioner applied for the execution of the lease deed with the DSIIDC. The application filed by the Petitioner seeking execution of the lease deed was referred to the Revenue Authority, Narela for paying registration fees with three sets of the lease deed. For the said purpose, the Revenue Officer raised a challan of Rs.73,320/-. The said challan was duly paid. Thereafter, upon the challan amount being revised, the Petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.80,627/- on 9th August, 2010.

4. On 9th October, 2020, the lease deed was duly executed and the DSIIDC issued two sets of the duly executed lease deed for registration in the office of the Respondent No.2 - SDM, Narela. The Petitioner sought appointment with the Respondent No.1 - Sub-Registrar VI-B, Narela, for registration of the same, by depositing the necessary e-stamp fees and registration charges. On 15th October, 2020, upon his arrival at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Narela, along with witnesses for the registration of the lease deed, the Petitioner was again informed that there was a difference in the challan amount deposited by him and the amount mentioned in the lease deed. Thus, the Petitioner was required to deposit the differential amount of Rs.7,267/-. In order to deposit the said differential amount, the Petitioner approached the SDM, Narela, under instructions of the office of the Sub-Registrar, and deposited the same on 21st December, 2020. The proof of deposit of Rs.80,627/- was also submitted to the Sub-Registrar, Narela, but the Petitioner was directed to obtain a certified copy of the challan and get the same verified by the SDM, Narela.

5. Finally, the verification of the receipt of the payment of Rs.80,627/- was given to the Petitioner, vide letter dated 15th July, 2021. The Petitioner immediately thereafter approached the Sub-Registrar, Narela, so that the lease deed could be registered in his favour, However, he was informed that his application was time barred, and hence, he was required to apply for extension of time. Accordingly, pursuant to the instructions of the office of the Sub-Registrar, Narela, the Petitioner filed an application dated 23rd July, 2021 seeking extension of time, categorically stating that the certified copy of the challan verifying the amounts deposited by the Petitioner was issued by the office of the SDM, Narela only on 15th July, 2021. However, the said application of the Petitioner was disposed of by the Sub-Registrar, vide impugned order dated 31st August, 2021 and the Petitioner was directed to deposit six times of the amo