Important Point – Registering Officer cannot enter into question of title.

1. Whether the registering authority under the Registration Act, 1908 can refuse to register document presented before it by going into the aspects relating to the title of the property or issues about legality of the transaction, is the question posed for consideration in these two cognate petitions.

2. By filing the captioned petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the respective petitioners have prayed to set aside order dated 13th April, 2015 passed by respondent No. 2 registering authority herein whereby the said authority refused to register sale deed dated 28th March, 2014 executed in favour of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 2015. A further direction is prayed for against respondent No. 2 to register the sale deed and release the document.

2.1 Since both the petitions involve same facts and the challenge in both is to the very order, they were heard together and are being decided simultaneously by this judgment. The relevant facts are set out with reference to first captioned Special Civil Application No. 8436 of 2015 and the words the petitioner and the respondents hereinafter have their reference accordingly.

3. The petitioner-Sitaram Sugars and Allied Industries Limited happens to be the purchaser of the property in auction. Respondent No. 1-Baroda Central Co-operative Bank Limited had advanced a cash credit facility to one Sardar Sugar Co-operative Limited, which was an affiliated member of the said Baroda Central Co-operative Bank. The properties of Sardar Sugar Co-operative Limited were mortgaged with the Baroda Central Co-operative Bank. The amount of loan was not repaid within the stipulated time. Respondent No. 1 Baroda Co-operative Bank filed a case under Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 before the Board of Nominees, Vadodara, for recovery of Rs. 14,09,58,000/- with interest at 16.5%, which came to be decreed in favour of the Bank on 14th September, 2010. The Recovery Officer issued notice for recovery, ultimately assumed possession of the properties and published advertisement dated 01st March, 2011 for auctioning the properties. The petitioner-Sitaram Sugars and Allied Industries Limited participated in the auction and stood as highest bidder.

3.1 It appears that the State Government lodged its charge in respect of the said properties. It further appears that in the meanwhile the District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vadodara filed Revision Application No. 55 of 2013 before the State Government seeking cancellation of the auction-sale. In the said proceedings, on 30th April, 2013, an order of status quo was passed by the revisional authority, which was challenged by respondent No. 1-Baroda Central Co-operative Bank Limited by filing Special Civil Application No. 9739 of 2013. The Baroda Central Co-operative Bank Limited also filed Special Civil Application No. 8597 of 2012 before this Court, in which an interim order of status quo was granted.

3.2 The petitioner was joined as respondent No. 5 in aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 9739 of 2013. In view of objection allegation of the State Government that the properties were valued less than the market price, this Court by order dated 18th September, 2013 directed Gujarat Industrial and Technological Company (GITCO) to carry out the valuation. As per the report of GITCO the value of the properties was less than the valuation shown by the Bank. On 05th December, 2013 this Court passed order, with consensus of learned advocates appearing for the parties to re-auction the properties. Thus a re-auction was ordered with concurrence of all the parties including the State Government.

3.3 The aforesaid order dated 05th December, 2013 is extracted in its relevant part:-

1. To see that the best price of the property is obtained, it is decided that the properties be re-auctioned by a Committee, comprising of the Officer of the High Court, not below the rank of Deputy Registrar; Director of S