ORDER

1. Of a note, the office objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has already been directed to be ignored vide order-sheet dated 2.3.2020. The instant petition is pending since 2020. The pleadings are complete and with the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, who are ready to argue it finally, the petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs:-

“2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following reliefs:-

i. Respondents may kindly be directed to register the sale deed produced by the parties for registration and hand it over to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

3. The facts in compendium are that on 25.1.2018 Shri Jairam, Sadaram and Ramratan sold certain land to the petitioners and submitted a sale-deed (Annexure-P/1) before the Sub Registrar for getting it registered with all requisite documents and stamp papers worth Rs.61,36,000/-. However, the Sub Registrar did not register the said sale-deed for no reason. The petitioners thereafter approached the District Registrar cum Collector of Stamps, Bhopal-2 and requested that procedure for getting the sale-deed (submitted on 25.1.2018 vide Deed ID No.8029493) registered be triggered and further proceeding be got done.

On 6.2.2018 the office of Sub Registrar Bhopal-2 asked for a legal opinion from the Government Advocate empanelled for District Court, Bhopal asking that the sale-deed was submitted before the office of Sub Registrar on 25.1.2018 after completing all requisite formalities by submitting relevant documents and also by paying requisite stamp duty but from the documents, the office came to know about the fact that a civil suit bearing C.S.No.331-A/2005 was pending before the Court in which an order was passed on 2.11.2006 that the transferors of the said property namely Shri Jairam, Ramratan and Sadaram all sons of Asharam shall not transfer the said property to any other person. The document also contained an order dated 13.1.2015 passed in C.S.No.1026-A/2013 mentioning that CS No.331-A/2005 was withdrawn and present suit i.e. C.S.No.1026-A/2013 has been filed. Thereafter, the Government Advocate gave an opinion on 9.2.2018 saying that CS No.331-A/2005 was withdrawn and thereafter new suit was filed i.e. C.S.No.1026-A/2013 in which as per the order dated 13.1.2015 Jairam, Ramratan and Sadaram, all three are entitled to get their sale-deed registered and as such sale-deed can be registered.

The District Registrar has also sought opinion from the office of Inspector General of Registration in which it is mentioned that although the petitioners have submitted a sale-deed along with all requisite documents on 25.1.2018 for getting it registered, but that has not been registered even after lapse of much time. The said letter also contains that on the date of submitting the sale-deed, the Sub Registrar had no right to retain it in absence of any moratorium by any Court and as such it appears that the Sub Registrar deliberately did not get the sale-deed registered and he was waiting for some stay order of the Court and thereafter in Second Appeal No.1233/2016, the High Court passed an order on 15.2.2018 granting interim direction that both the parties shall not create any third party right in the suit property till the next date of hearing. Despite seeking guidance from the Inspector General of Registration, nothing was done thereafter and even the opinion of Government Advocate has been brushed aside and hence this petition has been filed.

4. In contrast, a reply was filed on behalf of the respondentsState taking stand therein that in pursuance to interim order granted by the High Court on 15.2.2018, the sale-document since remained unregistered on 25.1.2018 cannot be registered no