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. 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 case is not on the basis of denial of execution therefore, reference to other provisions of Registration Act is not required. In exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act, M. P. Registration Rules 1939 have been framed. Rule 35 enumerates the valid reason for refusal to register a document. It may be seen that the absence of title with the vendor is not enumerated as a valid reason for refusal to register a document. In exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act, M. P. Registration Rules 1939 have been framed. Rule 35 enumerates the valid reason for refusal to register a document. It may be seen that the absence of title with the vendor is not enumerated as a valid reason for refusal to register a document. On the other hand, as per Rule 36, absence of title with the vendor cannot be treated as a valid ground for refusal to register the document. Rule 36 is reproduced below for convenience :- "36. When registration not to be refused.- Registration shall not be refused on the ground that any person executing or claiming under the document is unwilling that it shall be registered, or that want or failure of consideration or denial or execution with free consent (as defined in Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is pleaded by the executant of the document, although he admits execution, or that the document deals with property not belonging to the person by whom it purports to have been executed, or that the transaction is fraudulent or opposed to public policy, or that the document was executed under coercion or by fraud or under misrepresentation : Provided that the terms of the deed shall be clearly explained to the parties; and whenever any such plea as above indicated is raised, or any objection is taken to the terms of the document, the fact shall be recorded by the registering officer in an endorsement in Form 6 of Appendix A. The procedure to be followed on refusal to sign endorsement is laid down in Section 58 of the Act." 7. In the present case the vendor of Annexure P-1 has not denied the execution. It is only the Sub-Registrar who is not discharging his duty to register the document (Annexure/P-1) on the ground that a dispute about title is pending in the Court of Nazul and the document cannot be registered during the pendency of such a title dispute. Duties and powers of registering officers are contained in Part XI of the Registration Act. None of the provisions empowers the registering officers to refuse to register a document in case of dispute of title. Duties and powers of registering officers are contained in Part XI of the Registration Act. None of the provisions empowers the registering officers to refuse to register a document in case of dispute of title. Cumulative effect of the provisions contained in Parts XI, XII, Rules 35 and 36 makes it clear that the Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that the vendor/transferer of Annexure/P-1 has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Obviously, the vendee/transferee would derive by virtue of the registered document, right, title and interest which the transferor had at the time of execution of the deed. There would be no effect on the validity of transfer merely on account of pendency of case before Nazul Officer. No transfer of immovable property is prohibited even during the pendency of such a dispute. Only thing is that the transferee would get the right, title and interest of the transferee, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation. Keeping this in mind, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that merely on account of pendency of dispute before the Court of Nazul, the registering officer has a power to refuse to register the document. 8. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the reasons mentioned in Rule 35 as valid reasons though are not exhaustive and there may be valid reasons apart from those mentioned in Rule 35. This submission cannot be said to be without substance. However, it may not be lost sight of that in Rule 36, it is clearly mentioned that registration shall not be refused on the ground that the document deals with property not belonging to the person by whom it purports to have been executed. Thus, the absence of title with the executant of the document has not been prescribed as a valid ground in express and specific language. This being so, although the grounds enumerated in Rule 35 may not be exhaustive, but one thing is defined that the refusal to register a document on the ground of absence of title with the vendor has been prescribed as an invalid ground and the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal in not registering the document contained in Annexure/P1 on such a ground is found to have acted in dereliction of duties. Shri Dubey, learned Dy. Shri Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that an appeal ought to have been preferred under Section 76 of the Registration Act. This has been already rightly negatived by the Registrar vide Annexure/P-7 on the ground that order of refusal has not been passed at all. Further, contention of Shri Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General that the suit could have been filed under Section 77 of the Act is also without any force because no right to sue accrued in favour of the petitioner on the grounds enumerated thereunder. 9. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General stated that the subject land is Government land and cannot be permitted to be dealt with in the impugned manner. He apprehended that if such a document is registered, the petitioner would be able to seek mutation and deal with the property to the detriment of the interest of State Government. This apprehension, though, seems lucrative, does not contain seriousness. The title dispute was found pending before Nazul Officer as revealed in his letter dated 28th June, 2006 contained in Annexure/P-4. More than a year has elapsed and no development is reported in the case by learned Dy. Advocate General. Had the Government authorities been really serious and sincere in the matter, the case could have been decided by this time and the necessary steps for protection of Government property would have been taken. No such step having been taken, it is quite late in day to expect this court not to allow the petitioner to insist the registering officer to register the purchase deed contained in Annexure/P-1. It may further be seen that the Government authority would be still at liberty to take appropriate steps to protect the Government land despite registration of Annexure/P1. Thus, this objection also would not detain this Court from directing the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal to act in pursuance of the provisions of law contained in the Registration Act and the Rules made therein. 10. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed hereby. Respondents are expected to take appropriate action in the matter for protection of the interest of the Government. Period of one month is fixed for the purpose. 10. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed hereby. Respondents are expected to take appropriate action in the matter for protection of the interest of the Government. Period of one month is fixed for the purpose. It is accordingly, directed that in the absence of any restraint order from a Court having competent jurisdiction, respondent No.1 shall register the document contained in Annexure/P-1 within a week after expiry of one month from today in accordance with law on receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.