ORDER :- Facts involved in the petition are in very narrow compass. Petitioner purchased an immovable property from respondent No.4 on 24-6-2005. Sale deed was executed by respondent No.4 as revealed in Annexure/P-1 and was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal. He referred it to the Collector of Stamps, who vide order dated 31-8-2005 directed for payment of deficit stamp duty to the extent of Rs. 97,13,400/-. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal who vide his order dated 26-10-2005 reduced the amount of additional stamp duty to Rs. 54,86,897/-. This order was maintained by the Board of Revenue on 18-5-2006. Accordingly, the petitioner on 12-6-2006 deposited an additional stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 54,86,947/- vide challan dated 12th June, 2006. Nazul Officer, Bhopal (respondent No. 4) vide his communication dated 28-6-2006 informed the Collector of Stamps that the case with respect to the subject land proposed to be transferred in favour of petitioner is pending before him and therefore, no action for registration of the document be taken. Accordingly, the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal informed the petitioner's counsel that the pending case before the Court of Nazul may be got disposed of expeditiously in order to enable him to proceed with the registration of Annexure/P-1. Although, there was no order refusing to register Annexure/P-1, the petitioner by way of abundant precaution, submitted an appeal before District Registrar, Bhopal. This appeal was preferred by post because it was not entertained by hand. However, the District Registrar, Bhopal vide his letter dated 7-9-2006 informed the petitioner that in the absence an order of refusal to register Annexure/P-1, no appeal can be entertained.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid event, the present writ petition has been submitted on the ground that the registration of the sale deed contained in Annexure/P-1 cannot be legally denied on account of alleged pendency of dispute in the Court of Nazul at Bhopal of the land proposed to be sold/conveyed through Annexure/P-1.

3. Shri Alok Aradhe, learned senior counsel and Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General made their respective submissions.

4. Shri Aradhe, learned senior counsel contended that Sub-Registrar is duty bound to make registration of Annexure/P-1 since, the requisite stamp duty has already been paid. According to the learned senior counsel there is absolutely no provision which empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse the registration of Annexure/P-1 and the reason assigned by him is totally illegal and arbitrary.

5. Per contra Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General, the Sub-Registrar was within his powers to refuse the registration because the title of the land in question is not undisputed and the vendor of Annexure /P-1 is not competent to execute the sale deed for want of title.

6. On perusal of the scheme of Registration Act, it may be seen that Part XII of the Registration Act, 1908 deals with the powers of Sub-Registrar to register the document. Section 71 is a key provision in the Act with regard to the power of Sub-Registrar to refuse to register a document which is as follows :-

"71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded - (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words "registration refused" on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."

Order of refusal has been made appealable under Section 72 of the Act. Present

Click Here to Read the rest of this document