Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

The twin important questions of law that fall for consideration of this Court are:

(i) Whether the Registrar had any jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908?

(ii) Whether the impugned order cancelling the sale deeds without issuing notice or granting any opportunity of being heard to the vendees, was sustainable in law?

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.1993 passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Sonepat, whereby the four sale deeds dated 17.06.1992 were cancelled by him, under the Registration Act, 1908 ('the Act', for short).

The brief facts of the case are that Khewat No. 202/190 was comprising of 988 canals and 17 marlas of land, situated in the village of the parties. This land was owned by the Hindus as well as the Muslims. Consequent upon the partition of the country in 1947, share of the Muslims cosharers, who migrated to Pakistan, was declared as evacuee property and the same came to be vested in the custodian. The Joint Khewat No. 202/190 was partitioned by the Tehsildar (sales) cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Rohtak, vide order dated 13.03.1989 and the share of Muslims, who migrated to Pakistan was separated from the share of local residents. Mutation No. 2014/1 was sanctioned on 06.04.1989 in favour of custodian department qua the share of Muslims cosharers, who had migrated to Pakistan.

However, four Muslims cosharers, namely, Mehandi Hassan and Vakeel, sons of Mauji, Nazar son of Imamdin and Aziz son of Sajawal stayed back and did not migrate to Pakistan. They continued to remain in cultivating possession of the area to the extent of their shares in the joint holding. Due to an apparent inadvertent mistake, shares of the abovesaid four Muslims coshares was also included in the evacuee property without any notice to them, probably on the assumption that they has also migrated to Pakistan. Thereafter, these four Muslims owners sold their shares measuring 63 kanals 18 marlas by four separate sale deeds Annexures P1 to P4 dated 17.06.1992, in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners approached the Patwari Halka for entering the mutation in their favour on the basis of abovesaid four sale deeds (Annexure P1 to P4) but the Patwari declined to enter the mutation on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioners had already been sold in open auction to respondents No. 3 and 4 on 18.01.1989.

In the interregnum, Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Sonepat, reported to the Collector on 29.10.1991 that the Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent to partition the joint Khewat and sanction mutation. Permission to review mutation order dated 06.04.1989 was sought and was granted on 09.12.1991. Assistant Collector reviewed and cancelled the mutation order dated 06.04.1989, vide his order dated 27.12.1991. Petitioners submitted application dated 17.04.1993 to the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner respondent No. 2 for cancellation of auction sale dated 18.01.1989. Respondent No. 2 allowed this application of the petitioners, vide his order dated 01.02.1994 (Annexure P6) holding that the auction sale was unsustainable. Tehsildar (sales) was directed to send suomoto reference to the competent authority for setting aside the auction sale, made in favour of the private respondents. It was further directed that Assistant Collector, Sonepat would partition the Khewat and the area coming to the share of the custodian would be disposed of in open auction.

During this period, private respondents also submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Sonepat on 28.09.2013 alleging that they had purchased 75 kanals and 4 marlas of land in open auction on 18.01.1999 and thereafter, Mehandi Hassan etc. had wrongly sold the same land to the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar respondent No.1 cancelled the four sale deeds (Annexure P1 to P4), vide his impugned order dated 27.12.1993 (Annexure