-1-

CWP No.16452 of 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No.16452 of 2015

Date of decision: 19.08.2015

Hira Lal

....Petitioner

Versus

Registrar, Panipat and others

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

1)

Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see

the judgment ?

Yes

2)

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

Yes

3)

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes

Present: - Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution

of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

for quashing the order dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by

respondent No.2 – Sub Registrar, Panipat, whereby registration of sale

deed No.8369 dated 01.02.2012 has been refused and order dated

27.08.2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 – Registrar,

Panipat, whereby appeal filed by petitioner and respondent No.7 against

the order of the Sub Registrar, Panipat, has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that one Ganesh Dass was allotted

house No.429-L, Model Town, Panipat by the Rehabilitation Department

by virtue of conveyance deed dated 23.04.1958. Ganesh Dass died on

RAVINDER SINGH

2015.09.04 15:31

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

-2-

CWP No.16452 of 2015

17.06.1969 and the property devolved upon his three sons, namely, Ram

Parkash, Ram Dayal and Nand Lal. On 09.09.1986, Nand Lal also

expired. It is averred in the petition that on 19.01.1990 private partition

took place amongst the LRs of Ganesh Dass and Nand Lal, as a result of

which respondents No.3 to 6 got part of house No.429-L (Part), Model

Town, Panipat, measuring 179 square yards as owners in possession of

the same. Vide Annexure P-1 record of the Municipal Council, Panipat,

was updated whereby some tax was paid by respondents No.3 to 6. It is

the case of the petitioner that respondents No.3 to 6 entered into an oral

agreement to sell their house No.429-L (Part), Model Town, Panipat,

with petitioner and respondent No.7 for a total sale consideration of `

22,50,000/-. After verification from the municipal authorities, property

was sold in favour of petitioner and respondent No.7 and as per oral

agreement entire sale consideration was paid. Even Patwari affirmed

those facts. In pursuance of oral agreement, sale deed was executed and

presented before respondent No.2 – Sub Registrar, Panipat, for

registration. Sub Registrar accepted the aforesaid sale deed for

registration. Vendors and vendees had affixed their thumb impressions

on the sale deed at the time of execution and appeared before the Sub

Registrar and their photographs were also taken in view of Section 32-A

of the Registration Act. All the documentation was completed in the

presence of Sub Registrar. However, under Section 71(1) of the

Registration Act, Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed,

recorded reasons in his Book No.2 and endorsed the words “registration

RAVINDER SINGH

2015.09.04 15:31

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

-3-

CWP No.16452 of 2015

refused” on the sale deed vide order dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure P-6).

Against the order of Sub Registrar, petitioner and respondent No.7

preferred an appeal before the Registrar, Panipat, under Section 72 of the

Registration Act, which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2014

(Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

writ petition is maintainable against the impugned order dated

27.08.2014 (Annexure P-7). It is not necessary for the petitioner to file a

civil suit as required under Section 77 of the Registration Act. In

support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner rel