The central legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of the Sub-Registrar and Inspector General under the Registration Act do not include adjudicating disputes or canceling registered documents. The appropriate remedy for cancellation of a registered document lies in a civil court.

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The Order of the Court was delivered by:-Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/applicant has challenged the tenability and sustainability of Order bearing No.3408/Takniki/2008 dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by Inspector General, Registration Bhopal dismissing his application, filed against the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by the Sub-Registrar dismissing his application for recording the cancellation of some registered documents, and held that under Section 69 of Registration Act (in short "the Act"), he has been vested only the powers of general superintendence over the registration offices and to make Rules in that regard and is not empowered to hear any proceedings against the order of Sub Registrar and directed the applicant to approach the competent court in that regard.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioner herein filed an application dated 4.2.2008 in the office of Sub- Registrar, Bhopal for cancellation of registered documents dated 9.8.2001, 21.4.2004 and 11.7.2006 registered with respect of immovable property i. e. Plot No.7-B Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal. According to such application such plot was allotted to his mother Smt. Veeravali Anand by respondent No.4 Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Bhopal (In short "The Society"), vide sale deed dated 22.3.1962 registered on 30.3.1962. Smt. Veeravali Anand, died on 12.6.1988. Subsequent to her death the respondent No.4 Society through it is office bearer by executing a extinguished deed dated 9.8.2001 unilaterally cancelled the aforesaid allotment and thereafter on strength of such extinguished deed again executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of respondent No.5 Smt. Manjit Kaur who later on her tem executed another sale deed dated 11.7.2006 in favour of respondent No.6 and 7 Smt. Meenakshi and Shri S. C. Shanna. Such subsequent documents being got registered by the respondents practicing the fraud with the right of the petitioner ab-initio void the prayer for recording the cancellation in the record of the same was made.

3. In reply of private respondents by admitting the allotment of the plot to Smt. Veeravali in the year 1962, it is stated that subsequent to such allotment as per terms no steps were taken by such allottee for years together near about 35 years to make such construction on such plot. On which respondent No.4 Society got registered the extinguished deed dated 9.8.2001 in it's favour. The same after taking the damages Rs.6,50,000/- was recognized by the petitioner by executing an agreement dated 6.7.2004. As per further averments the petitioner has also filed a dispute in this regard under Section 64 of Cooperative Societies Act before the Sub- Registrar Cooperative Society, Bhopal, the same is pending. Besides this in respect of the same plot some other litigations between the parties are also pending before different forum i. e. Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, State Cooperative Tribunal and in the High Court.

4. On consideration, the Sub Registrar (Registration) vide order dated 28.6.2008 dismissed such application holding the question of sustainability of extinguished deed dated 9.8.2001 and interpretation of Clause 43 (1) of the Bye-Laws of Society are still pending before Sub-Registrar, Cooperative Society and other competent forum, therefore till declaring by the competent forum that Clause 43 (1) of Bye-Laws of the society was not applicable to the present dispute no finding with respect of aforesaid extinguished deed could be given by him. He also held that the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar is limited only up to the extent to register the document and if any of the party wants its cancellation then the relevant parties may got registered the cancellation deed on proper stamp duty.

5. On filing the application against such order under Section 69 of the Act before the Inspector General of Registration, the same was dismiss