Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Himmat Singh Bhati - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ No. 3902 of 2011
Decided On : 16-01-2017
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 22A - RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 1955 - SECTION 46 - NOTIFICATION DATED 10.01.1990 - REGISTRATION RULES, 1955 - RULE 39 - RAJASTHAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1976 - ACT NO. 16 OF 1976 - CIRCULAR NO.4/2004 - REGISTRATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO TEMPLE - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - SCOPE OF INQUIRY BY REGISTERING OFFICER - EFFECT OF STRIKING DOWN OF SECTION 22A - DUTY OF REGISTERING OFFICER - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was served with a charge-sheet for registering a sale deed of agricultural land belonging to a temple in violation of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and a notification dated 10.01.1990 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet, arguing that Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, under which the notification was issued, had been struck down by the Rajasthan High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore, the notification was void. The petitioner also argued that he had appended a note to the document in terms of Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955, stating that the seller claimed to be the owner of the property and that if it was eventually found to be Devasthan / Temple, the responsibility would be that of the seller.
Finding of the Court:
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order imposing a penalty on the petitioner. The court held that the notification dated 10.01.1990 was issued under Section 22A of the Registration Act, which had been struck down by the Rajasthan High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the notification was void and the petitioner could not be held liable for misconduct for registering the document in question. The court also held that the petitioner had complied with his duty by appending a note to the document in terms of Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification dated 10.01.1990 issued under Section 22A of the Registration Act was valid after the striking down of Section 22A by the Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the petitioner had violated any provision of law, circular/notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan while registering the disputed document? 3. Whether the disciplinary authority had considered the petitioner's legal and factual submissions before passing the impugned order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notification dated 10.01.1990 was issued under Section 22A of the Registration Act, which had been struck down by the Rajasthan High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the notification was void and the petitioner could not be held liable for misconduct for registering the document in question. 2. The court held that the petitioner had complied with his duty by appending a note to the document in terms of Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955. 3. The court held that the disciplinary authority had not considered the petitioner's legal and factual submissions before passing the impugned order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order imposing a penalty on the petitioner was quashed. The petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the above direction.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Himmat Singh Bhati has approached this court imploring the order (Annexure-7) dated 09.03.2011 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel being the petitioner''s disciplinary authority, imposing upon him a penalty of stoppage of one year annual grade increment with cumulative effect.
2. Facts relevant and germane for disposal of the instant writ petition are noted herein below:-
The petitioner entered services of the respondent Registration and Stamp Department, Government of Rajasthan in the year 1985. He was serving the Department satisfactorily without any complaint whatsoever till the year 2008 when for the first time, a charge-sheet dated 26.06.2008 was served to the petitioner for alleged misconduct committed in the year 2004, while serving on the post of SubRegistrar, Udaipur. A sale-deed of agricultural land of Meetharamji Temple in village Ayar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur was presented for registration by one Mahant Shri Ramchandra Das before the petitioner, who registered the document on 30.11.2004. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that registration of sale deed of agricultural land belonging to temple was carried out by the petitioner in flagrant violation of Section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as well as the notification dated 10.01.1990 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan. Alongwith the charge-sheet, statement of allegations and memorandum of charge were also served to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet. Referring to Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act, he contested the charges claiming that scope of inquiry required to be conducted by the Registering Officer before registering any document is very limited. Validity of title of the land described in the documents presented for registration cannot be gone into by the registering authority. Reference was also given to Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 as per which, the Registering Officers are not required to examine or inquire into validity of the document presented for registration. Reference was also made to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Basant Nahata vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 Rajasthan 127 whereby, Section 22A of the Registration Act was declared ultra vires and struck down. It was asserted that the notification dated 10.01.1990 issued under Section 22A of the registration Act requiring the Registering Officers to register a document only after satisfying himself that the property in question does not belong to the State Government, local body or temple was impliedly annulled by effect of the above Judgment. The thrust of the petitioner''s case in the reply and the writ petition is that with declaration of the main provision (Section 22A of the Registration Act) to be ultra vires, any notification issued therein would per se become null and void and thus, the charge-sheet lacks foundation. A further case is set up in the writ petition that pursuant to the Division Bench Judgment, the Registration Department issued a Circular No.04/2004 intimating all the Registering Authorities that Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 had been declared ultra vires but a note in terms of Rule 39 of the Rules of 1955 should be appended by the Sub-Registrar before registering any such document. The petitioner claims that while registering the disputed document, he appended thereupon, a note in terms of Rule 39 of the Rules in his own handwriting mentioning that the seller claims to be the owner of the property and if eventually the property was found to be of Devasthan / Temple, the responsibility would be that of the seller. The petitioner has further asserted that without considering the legal issues raised by him in the reply, the Disciplinary Authority, Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, in an absolutely mechanical manner, proce
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
