By the Court.—We have heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. The petitioner has questioned the veracity of the Government order dated 13.8.2013 and orders dated 23.9.2016 and 18.10.2016 passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur by which the authority has withdrawn the registration of the sale-deed and has consequently annulled the sale-deed dated 15.12.2015 executed by respondent No. 11 in favour of the petitioners.

3. The facts pleaded in the writ petition are, that respondent No. 11 is the father who executed a registered Will dated 14/15.10.2014 bequeathing his residential house in favour of his children, namely, the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 to 10. During his life time, respondent No. 11 executed a sale-deed of the same property in favour of the petitioners by means of a registered sale-deed dated 15.12.2015. Respondent No. 11 filed a suit on 5.8.2016 for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 15.12.2015 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the petitioners is null and void for the reasons stated in the plaint which is not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present dispute. After four days, respondent No. 11 filed an application under Order 23 C.P.C for withdrawal of the suit without seeking liberty to file a fresh suit and ultimately on the basis of this application, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.1.2017.

4. In the meanwhile, the beneficiaries under the Will, namely, the brothers and sisters of the petitioners filed a complaint before the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur. Based on this complaint, an enquiry was initiated in accordance with Clause 6(6) of the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 and, after such enquiry, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur by an order dated 18.10.2016, found that the sale-deed was executed on account of fraud and misrepresentation and accordingly withdrew the registration and simultaneously annulled the sale-deed dated 15.12.2015.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the present writ petition not only challenging the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp), Rampur but also prayed for the quashing of the Government Order dated 13.8.2013.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent Nos. 4 to 10, being the brothers and sisters have no locus to question the veracity and legality of the sale-deed dated 15.12.2015 as they are not the owners of the property nor are they executants of the sale-deed. It was contended that they are beneficiaries under a Will but the Will cannot be enforced as yet inasmuch as their father, namely the testator is still alive. It was contended that the testator, during his life time could always execute a sale-deed, irrespective of the execution of a Will.

7. It was further contended that the Government Order dated 13.8.2013, is against the teeth of the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 and such Government Order cannot be executed in exercise of the power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

8. It was further contended that once a sale-deed has been executed, the same cannot be annulled by an administrative order passed by the Assistant Inspector General (Registration/Stamp) and that the said authority become functus officio after execution of the sale-deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that allegations of fraud misrepresentation, deceit etc. cannot be considered by the authority under the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 and that the only remedy available to the executant of the sale-deed was to file a suit which in any case had been instituted but subsequently withdrawn.

9. On the other hand Shri Shreeprakash Singh,