Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 – Sub Registrar, Panipat, whereby registration of sale deed No.8369 dated 01.02.2012 has been refused and order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 – Registrar, Panipat, whereby appeal filed by petitioner and respondent No.7 against the order of the Sub Registrar, Panipat, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Ganesh Dass was allotted house No.429-L, Model Town, Panipat by the Rehabilitation Department by virtue of conveyance deed dated 23.04.1958. Ganesh Dass died on 17.06.1969 and the property devolved upon his three sons, namely, Ram Parkash, Ram Dayal and Nand Lal. On 09.09.1986, Nand Lal also expired. It is averred in the petition that on 19.01.1990 private partition took place amongst the LRs of Ganesh Dass and Nand Lal, as a result of which respondents No.3 to 6 got part of house No.429-L (Part), Model Town, Panipat, measuring 179 square yards as owners in possession of the same. Vide Annexure P-1 record of the Municipal Council, Panipat, was updated whereby some tax was paid by respondents No.3 to 6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents No.3 to 6 entered into an oral agreement to sell their house No.429-L (Part), Model Town, Panipat, with petitioner and respondent No.7 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-. After verification from the municipal authorities, property was sold in favour of petitioner and respondent No.7 and as per oral agreement entire sale consideration was paid. Even Patwari affirmed those facts. In pursuance of oral agreement, sale deed was executed and presented before respondent No.2 – Sub Registrar, Panipat, for registration. Sub Registrar accepted the aforesaid sale deed for registration. Vendors and vendees had affixed their thumb impressions on the sale deed at the time of execution and appeared before the Sub Registrar and their photographs were also taken in view of Section 32-A of the Registration Act. All the documentation was completed in the presence of Sub Registrar. However, under Section 71(1) of the Registration Act, Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed, recorded reasons in his Book No.2 and endorsed the words “registration refused” on the sale deed vide order dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-6). Against the order of Sub Registrar, petitioner and respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Panipat, under Section 72 of the Registration Act, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure P-7). It is not necessary for the petitioner to file a civil suit as required under Section 77 of the Registration Act. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd., [2011(3) Law Herald (SC) 2164] : 2011(3) RCR(Civil) 821 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1999(1) RCR(Civil) 220 and contended that even if alternative remedy is available, writ under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. Alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that it is not within the power of the Sub Registrar to enquire into the matter whether the title vests in the vendors or not, once the document is presented, same is required to be registered. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sham Bai widow of Damodar Lal Dahiya son of Mani Devi and oth