The judgment established the importance of registered documents for property transfers and the limitations on challenging auction proceedings based on procedural irregularities.

N. P. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the three petitioners seeking to assail the order Anexure 6 passed by the respondent No. 9 negativingthe objection of the petitioners against the sale of agricultural land situated at village Padralatehsil and District Pali.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 8 Mahendra Singh and some otherpersons had taken some loan from a cooperative society. However, the said loan was not repaid, and for recovery of the said loan along with interest, land of respondent No. 8 was put toauction. In thatauction the respondent No. 5 had given the highest bid. At this stage, the petitioners raised objection against the sale on various grounds. However, the auction was confirmed. At this stage four writ petitions were filed before this Court, onebeing S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1984 by the present respondent No. 8, while other three writ petitions being No. 2218, 2219 and 2220 of 1984 were filed by the three present petitioners separately. The Writ Petition No. 1624 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 18-9-1992 while the other three writ petitions came to be heardand disposed of by the learned Single Judge ofthis Court (Honble Mr. Justice P. K. Palli) videorder dated 27-9-1994 whereby it was directed tothe Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pali to examine the matter in the light of the averment made by the petitioners in the writ petitions. However, it was clarified that the petitionerswill be at liberty to place any other document, evidence for the purposes of examination by thedy. Registrar, and he was to find out thevalidity of the transfer in favour of thepetitioners" as well as of the legality ofattachement etc.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER the matter was decided by the learned Dy. Registrar and after appeal and revision, the matter was ultimately decided by the State Government vide Anx. 6 and various findings have also been given in Annexure 6.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioners is that they had purchased the land way back in the year 1970 andthat sale had been recognised by the competent authority in ceiling proceedings vide Annexure 1 and necessary mutations had also been effected in the revenue record, in such situation it cannot be said that the land belonged to the respondent No. 8 capable of being sold for effecting recovery of the outstanding against him.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-petitioner No. 5, on the other hand, controverted the submission and contended that the allegeddocument of sale has never seen the light of the day and that being an unregistered document, since it effects the immovable property of thevalue of more than Rs. 100. 00, it cannot have theeffect of conferring any title on thepetitioners. Learned counsel has referred toannexure 1 and pointed out that even in this order, which is claimed to be the order recognising thedocument, it has expressly beenheld that in viewof the judgment of the Board of Revenue referredto therein, the claimed transfer can be recognised notwistanding the document beingunstamped or unregistered or even in absence oftheir being any written document, and on thatbasis it is contended that merely because of Annexure 1 the provisions of Section 54 cannot be ignored, so as to effect the rights of the respondentno. 5. It is further contended that in view ofthe judgment of this Court dated 27-9-1994 passed inthe writ petition wherein it has clearly beencontemplated that the validity of the transfer made in favour of the petitioners is to be gone into, and therefore, unless the petitioners areable to show their valid title in the land or to have validly acquired title in the land, the auction sale in favour of the answering respondent No. 5 cannot be allowed to be set at naught merely on the basis of Annexure 1.

( 6 ) NEXT submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure 5 was the order passed by the Revisional Authority exercisi