ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Raigarh, whereby, the Collector, has directed the Tahsildars of Raigarh, Pusor, Sarangarh & Baramkela and the Sub Registrars of Raigarh & Sarangarh, not to register the sale deed in respect of the land of tribal till the further instructions from the State Government. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent No.4 i.e. Sub Registrar, Raigarh to register the sale deed Annexure P-4 of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act, 1908") and thereafter, issue the sale certificate. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that one Santram Rathiya was the registered owner of the land in question and he sold the same to the petitioner after getting the full amount of consideration and after obtaining the permission from the Board of Revenue. The sale deed has been presented in the office of Sub Registrar, Raigarh and the stamp duty to the tune of Rs.4,17,000/- has already been paid and all the inquiries have already been completed, but only because of the order of the Collector, the Sub Registrar is not registering the sale deed and issued the sale certificate. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that when the petitioner has approached the office of the Registrar, Raigarh, the Sub- Registrar vide letter dated 04.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) informed the petitioner that though all the formalities have already been completed, but only because of the order passed by the Collector dated 18.01.2011, the sale deed cannot be registered. 4. Shri Paranjape, would further submit that the Registrar and the Sub Registrar under the Act, 1908 are not subordinate to the Collector and no order can be passed by the Collector with regard to the registration of the documents. The act of the respondent authorities is illegal and arbitrary. Refusal on the part of the registering authority is not only opposed to the public policy, but also invalid and constitutionally not sustainable. 5. Shri Paranjape would next submit that the action of the Sub-Registrar de hors the provisions of law at the instance of the Collector and the same is contrary to the provisions of law and amounts to colourable exercise of power. 5. Shri Paranjape would next submit that the action of the Sub-Registrar de hors the provisions of law at the instance of the Collector and the same is contrary to the provisions of law and amounts to colourable exercise of power. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in Sanjay Kumar Kada & Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others : WP (C) No. 4374 of 2009 (decided on 28-7-2010)). 6. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that the respondent Sub Registrar has rightly declined to register the sale deed on the basis of the order passed by the Collector. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. Sections 69 & 71 of the Act, 1908 read as under : "69. Power of Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules.-(1) The Inspector General shall exercise general superintendence over all the registration offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act- (a) providing for the safe custody of books, papers and documents: (aa) providing the manner in which and the safeguards subject to which the books may be kept in computer floppies or diskettes or in any other electronic form under sub-section (1) of Section 16-A; (b) declaring what languages shall be deemed to be commonly used in each district; (c) declaring what territorial divisions shall be recognized under Section 21 ; (d) regulating the amount of fines imposed under Sections 25 and 34, respectively; (e) regulating the exercise of the discretion reposed in the registering officer by Section 63; (t) regulating the form in which registering officers are to make memoranda of documents; (g) regulating the authentication by Registrars and Sub- Registrars of the books kept in their respective offices under Section 51 ; (gg) regulating the manner in which the instruments referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 88 may be presented for registration; (h) declaring the particulars to be contained in Indexes Nos. I, II, III and IV, respectively; (i) declaring the holidays that shall be observed in the registration offices; and, G) generally, regulating the proceedings of Registrars and Sub-Registrars. (2) The rules so made shall be submitted to the State Government for approval, and, after they have been approved, they shall be published in the Official Gazette, and on publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act." "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." 9. This Court in Sanjay Kumar Kadal (supra) held that "the Collector has no jurisdiction to amend a part or entire rules. There has to be a proper notification, as provided under the provisions of law. The order passed by the Collector is a mere guideline and not in accordance with the provisions of law." 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.01.2011 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, Raigarh, in respect of the direction to the Sub-Registrar, Raigarh, for the case of the petitioner, is bad, illegal and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly the same is quashed in part, as aforestated. The Sub-Registrar, Raigarh, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1908 and in view of the decision of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Kadal (supra) as expeditiously as possible. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.