By the Court.—Sri Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the array of the party during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. He states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3 and the writ petition be heard and decided on merits.

3. With the consent of the parties, we have heard the matter on merits and the same is being decided at the admission stage itself without calling for counter-affidavit under the Rules of the Court.

4. Facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings are that the dispute between the parties is in respect of Arazi Plot No. 155 area 0.506 hectare situate at Mauza Daangipar, Tappa Patra, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur, which was recorded in the name of one Shankar, father of respondent No. 3. A registered sale-deed of the plot in question was executed by the father of the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner on 21.11.2014, which was duly registered and endorsed in the record of the Deputy Registrar-1st Gorakhpur on the same day i.e. on 21.11.2014 at Bahi No. 1, Zild No. 10945 Page No. 51 to 122 at Serial No. 9815.

5. After few months of the execution of the sale-deed, father of respondent No. 3 died. After his death, respondent No. 3 made an application on the allegation that the sale-deed was got executed through some imposter. It was pleaded that photograph affixed on the document was not of his father but of some of imposter and the document also do not bear thumb impression of his father.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that power to hold inquiry in respect of the registration of deed under Section 34(3) read with Section 35 of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is available to the Registrar concerned at a stage prior to the registration of the sale-deed. It is further submitted that once the sale-deed is registered, the Registrar concerned is not competent to cancel the registration and if any person is aggrieved by registration of a document, he can file a suit for cancellation thereof. Once the process of registration is complete, the registering officer becomes functo officio.

7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that complaint made by the respondent No. 3 was considered by Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2, herein, in accordance with clause 6.6 of the Government Order dated 13.8.2013 and finding that the sale-deed was executed by an imposter and was a result of fraud and representation rightly withdrew the registration and directed lodging of the first information report.

8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. It may be relevant to quote the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Act.

“34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer :

(1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Part and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 :

Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any, payable under Section 25, the document may be registered.

(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous or at different times.

(3) The registering officer shall thereupon -

(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by who