Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Shekhar Attri
L.P.A. No. 647 of 2016
Ganesh Dass
v.
Smt. Amina & Ors.
{Decided on 26/09/2017}
Registered Document—Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel or set aside a duly registered document.
Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908, S.17 & S.18--Cancellation of Registered Document--Registrar has no jurisdiction to conduct such an inquiry after registration of a document by a Sub Registrar--The powers bestowed on the Registrar under the statute are merely administrative-- He has no jurisdiction to cancel or set aside a duly registered document. (Para 30)
The Registering Officer can refuse to register a document only in situations mentioned in Sections such as 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document.
(B) Registration Act, 1908, S.17 & S.18--Cancellation of Registered Document—Where there are allegations of the forgery of a document and the contradictory verification reports, then there must be a regular trial before the civil court. (Para 24)
(C) Registration Act, 1908, S.17 & S.18--Cancellation of Registered Document--Registering Officer can refuse to register a document on the grounds, inter alia, if he is not satisfied with the conditions imposed under Sections 32 to 35--However, he is duty bound to record the reasons for his refusal--The party, aggrieved by such a refusal has the power to prefer an appeal before the Registrar under the provisions of Section 72. (Para 24)
(D) Registration Act, 1908, S.35--Refusal to Registration--Sub-section (3) of Section 35 authorises the Registering Officer to refuse the registration--The scope of enquiry under this section is highly limited and the same is applicable only in three situations, namely:-
(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead, and his representative or assignee denies its execution.
If any of the three situations is prevalent, then the registering officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead--Albeit, under the provisions of Section 71, the registering officer is duty bound to assign reasons for refusal to register a document except that he has no territorial jurisdiction. (Para 19)
Mr. Raj Shekhar Attri, J.:- This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 4.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.5573 of 2008 setting aside order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Registrar Mewat, District Nuh, vide which registered sale deed No.2284 dated 20.8.2007 has been cancelled.
2. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass. Present appellant Ganesh Dass was a co-sharer in the land covered by said sale deed No.2284 dated 20.8.2007. He agreed to sell the aforesaid land to Smt. Ameena to the extent of 1/4th share; Smt. Farida to the extent of 1/4th share (petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.5573 of 2008); Smt. Sahidan to the extent of 1/4th share; and Smt. Samsa (proforma respondents no.5 and 6 in Civil Writ Petition No.5573 of 2008) to the extent of 1/4th share for a total sale consideration of Rs.37,25,000/-. He had received a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- vide Bank pay order (Annexure-P1) on 1.8.2007. He had again received a sum of Rs.27,75,000/- on 10.8.2007 and executed general power of attorney (Annexure-P2) in favour of Shaukat Ali and Hamidulla. Both the above said power of attorneys had executed the said sale deed which was duly registered at No.2284 dated 28.8.2007 by the Sub Registrar Nuh.
3. The record reveals that subsequently an application (Annexure-A4) was submitted before the Sub Registrar, Karnailganj on 16.11.2007 seeking verification with regard to the genuineness of the general power of attorney No.1297 dated 10.8.2007 registered in the office of Sub Registrar Karnailganj, District Gonda (Uttar Pradesh). In response to said letter, the Sub Registrar had reported that the general power of attorney No.1297 of 2007 is not registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Karnailganj. On receipt of this report, the Registrar Mewat held an inquiry and ordered cancellation of sale deed No.2284 dated 20.8.2007 vide his order dated 28.11.2007 on the ground that the same has been registered on the basis of a forged and fabricated power of attorney No.1297 dated 10.8.2007.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of cancellation, two of the vendees Smt. Ameena and Smt. Farida preferred Civil Writ Petition No.5573 of 2008 for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 on the grounds that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel a registered document and that the allegations of fraud have not been proved and also on the ground that no notice was served upon the vendees, thus the same violates the principle of natural justice.
5. Upon notice, respondents No.1 to 3 (before the writ court) have contested the writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that above said Shaukat Ali and Hamidulla have forged and fabricated the general power of attorney and that on the basis of the same, they have executed said sale deed. It is also added in the reply that the Registrar Mewat sought verification from the Sub Registrar Karnailganj, District Gonda of the said general power of attorney and it was reported that it has not been registered with Sub Registrar, Nuh, thus the same is forged and fabricated document; that the Registrar Mewat had conducted an inquiry wherein, real owner, namely, Ganesh Dass (appellant herein) moved application to the effect that he never appointed Shaukat Ali and Hamidulla as general power of attorneys, therefore, a false and fabricated power of attorney has been procured. According to these respondents, the cancellation order is fully legal and valid and the same has been passed after conducting an inquiry.
6. Respondent No.4 - Ganesh Dass also contested the writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that he never appointed above said Shaukat Ali and Hamidulla as general power of attorneys, therefore, above said sale deed is illegal, null and void and has been rightly cancelled by the Registrar Mewat.
7. The learned Single Bench allowed Civil Writ Petition No.5573 of 2008 and order dated 28.11.2007 passed by Registrar Mewat has been set aside. This
