By the Court.—This Larger Bench has been constituted under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice on basis of the order dated 22.5.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 2973 of 2016. In the case aforesaid, a Division Bench of this Court arrived at the conclusion that the view taken in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora v. State of U.P. and 6 others (Writ-C No. 63439 of 2013), decided on 20.11.2013 is in conflict with a view taken in Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Bench No. 2562 of 2014), decided on 28.3.2014 and looking to the divergent views taken by two Division Benches matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench. The Division Bench under the order dated 22.5.2017 referred following questions for adjudication by Larger Bench :

“(a) Whether after a sale-deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale-deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made?

(b) Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent Civil Court?

(c) Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?”

2. On going through the Division Bench judgments in Raj Kumari (supra) and Radhey Shyam Arora (supra), we do not find any conflict in the conclusions arrived. In Raj Kumari (supra), a Division Bench while examining the issue that whether an administrative authority while acting upon the Government order dated 13.8.2013 could have cancelled a registered sale-deed by relying upon a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanalla Malleswari v. Ananthalu Sayamma, AIR 2007 (AP) 57, held that “once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale-deed, have no authority to execute sale-deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case, there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transactions.” The Court, in the case aforesaid, refused to interfere with an order passed by Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Amethi directing the registering authority to proceed in accordance with a Government order empowering the Registrar to set aside a sale-deed if that has been obtained by fraud by an executor having no authority to sell the property.

3. In Radhey Shyam Arora (supra), the Division Bench was examining the same issue as in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) and, in this case too, the Division Bench held that “once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale-deed, have no authority to execute sale-deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case, there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transaction.” While arriving at the conclusion as above, it was also observed that a right shall be there to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration by way of filing a suit if any substantive right has been defeated. In this case, right to avail the remedy of suit is given only to challenge the order passed by the registering authority cancelling a sale-deed. The Division Bench nowhere arrived at the conclusion that a registered sale-deed cannot be set aside by the registering authority while exercising powers under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1908”).

The findings noticed above are not at all conflicting but same, therefore, under the order dated 22.5.2017, the Division Bench while adjudicating Writ-C No. 2973 of 2016 erred by concluding that the judgments in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) and Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) are running contrary to each other, as such, the Question (c) referred to us is absolutely non