The court established that the Appellate Authority's consideration of the notifications and dismissal of the appeal was justified, and the plea of delay and laches in filing the writ petition was without merit.

JUDGMENT :

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ.)

The writ petitioner is a company registered on 17.05.1997 under the Registration of Companies Act (Sikkim), 1961 and the petition was filed through one of the shareholders.

2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.2 dismissing the appeal being Appeal No.03/2011 filed by the petitioner, a letter dated 28.05.2011 issued by the respondent no.3 as well as a letter dated 19.12.2003 issued by the Revenue Officer-cum-Assistant Director, Land Revenue Department, Government of Sikkim (who is not arrayed as party-respondent). A Writ of mandamus is also prayed for to direct the State-respondents to register the Lease Deed dated 07.01.2000 entered in between the petitioner and respondent no.4. Prayer is also made to call for the records of the registration proceedings relating to the Lease Deed and records of Appeal No.03/2011. Further prayer is made to call for the records of Misc. Case No.70/2010, wherein the petitioner and the respondent no.4 were parties.

3. Land measuring 20,525 sq.ft. in a portion of Khasra Plot No.70/99 and 72/100 situated at Sichey in the Pioneer Reserve Block – Tadong Elakha , Gangtok was the subject matter of the Lease Deed with boundaries as indicted in the Lease Deed.

4. Before proceeding further, though not really a subject matter of this petition, for better understanding, it will be appropriate to take note of the fact that Misc. Case No.70/2010 was registered in the Court of District Collector (East) and a final order was passed in the said proceeding on 25.06.2011.

5. The petitioner had filed an objection before the District Collector (East) on 16.09.2008, stating that the land forming part of the Lease Deed was proposed to be sold by the respondent no.4 to some other parties and that registration of the plot of land in any other name would invite litigation and, accordingly, requesting the authority to intimate the petitioner in case any such document of sale is presented for registration. The said letter was taken as a standing objection filed by the petitioner. On 26.05.2010, the respondent no.4 filed a petition stating, amongst others, that he had sold the plot of land to one Ms. Tashi Ongmu Bhutia, and that a communication was sent to the petitioner on 19.12.2003 by the Land Revenue Department, Government of Sikkim through Revenue Officer-cum-Assistant Director, informing that the Lease Deed could not be registered due to the reasons mentioned therein and that in the meantime, he had mortgaged his landed property to the State Bank of Sikkim in the year 2009 for a loan for constructing a dwelling house. It was further stated that he had decided to sell out his landed property to three individuals and the Sale Deeds to that effect had been executed and accordingly, prayed for registration of Sale Deeds in favour of the purchasers. On receipt of the same, Misc. Case No.70/2010 was registered.

6. By an order dated 25.06.2011, the District Collector, East directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East not to register the Sale Deeds presented by the present respondent no.4 in respect of the land in dispute till the matter is disposed of by the appropriate authority or Court of Law. The District Collector was of the opinion that when the land was mortgaged to the State Bank of Sikkim and the mortgage has not been cleared or cancelled, sale of the same land and its registration cannot be allowed. The other reason assigned by the District Collector was that the validity of the Lease Deed between the petitioner and respondent no.4 was left to be decided by the appropriate authority or Court of Law and therefore, till the matter is disposed of by the appropriate authority or Court of Law, sale of the land in question and registration of the Sale Deeds cannot be permitted.

7. In the said proceeding registered as Misc. Case No. 70/2010, in his reply dated 10.11.2010, it was contended by the petitioner that letter dated 19.12.2003 w