Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Twin important questions of law that fall for consideration of this Court are: (i) whether the Registering Officer under the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act’ for short) has got the jurisdiction to cancel the saledeed and (ii) whether an aggrieved party can seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Registering Officer under the Act to cancel the sale-deed.

Facts first.

2. Petitioners claim themselves to be the descendants of one Paras Nath, as per the pedigree table (Annexure P-1). It is further case of the petitioners that in view of the jamabandi for the year 2004-05 (Annexure P- 2), they were joint owners in possession of agricultural land mentioned in the jamabandi. On the basis of alleged bogus and fabricated power of attorney (Annexure P-3), sale-deed dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) came to be registered qua the above-said land of the petitioners. Having come to know about the above-said sale-deed and on the strength of documents Annexures P-5 to P-7, petitioner No.1 got registered FIR No.204 dated 26.11.2010 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani vide Annexure P-8 against respondent No.5, who sought regular bail, which was declined by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure P-9).

3. Simultaneously, petitioners approached Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani vide application Annexure P-10 as well as the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar-respondent No.2 seeking cancellation of the sale-deed bearing No.870 dated 27.9.2010. Commissioner, Hisar Division, vide his communication dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure P-12), directed Sub-Registrar, Bawani Khera not to register any sale-deed pertaining to the land mentioned in the representation by the petitioners. However, Collector Bhiwani-respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure P-11) observing that there was no provision in the Act under which the Registrar can cancel the registered documents. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 12.6.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by Collector, Bhiwani, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order. Petitioners are also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the sale-deed bearing No. 870 dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P-4).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5, in connivance with other respondents, has defrauded the petitioners by getting the sale-deed registered on the basis of bogus power of attorney. He further submits that in view of the provisions of Sections 17 and 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the T.P. Act’ for short) and also in view of the provisions contained in Sections 13 to 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as well as Sections 31 and 34 of the the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the sale-deed in question was void ab initio being the result of fraud played by respondent No.5. He next contended that the Registering Officer would have the inherent powers to cancel the sale-deed. Since the Collector respondent No.3 failed to appreciate the true factual as well as legal position, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. He places heavy reliance on Section 68 of the Act to contend that the Registrar was competent to issue appropriate directions to the Sub-Registrar to cancel the sale-deed. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007(1) CCC 527. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opi