JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a society consisting of licensed Deed Writers, at Udaipur, South Tripura, and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with its head office, at Agartala, and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the said society. The petitioners have put to challenge, by making this writ petition, tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the circular/order, dated 30-03-2011, issued by respondent No. 2, namely, District Registrar (Addl. District Magistrate & Collector), Udaipur, South Tripura. as ultra vires and untenable in law. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the issues involved, the circular/order, in question, is reproduced below: Government of Tripura Office of the District Registrar South Tripura, Udaipur To, The Sub-Registry Officer, Udaipur/Amarpur/Belonia/Sabroom, South Tripura. Subject:-- Registration of Deed-thereof. Sir, It is reported that proper procedure is not followed while executing Registration. As for example, a co-sharer of land is easily selling his land to buyer without presenting bantannama and such deed has been executed even without consent of all co-sharers. 2. That a seller not having possession of the land through ROR is in his name is being allowed to execute the sale deed in-spite of the fact that the name of possessor is clearly mentioned in the ROR and this type of khatian is not free from encumbrances. In the light of the above, I am once again drawing the attention of all Sub-Registry Officers under South Tripura District to meticulously check all relevant documents and to follow proper procedure as prescribed by Rules, Act and Instruction of the Government issued time to time. Some of the issues are being highlighted hereunder :-- (i) During the execution of sale deed buyer and seller must be present. (ii) Buyer and seller must present Photo Identity Card. (iii) Buyer must present relevant documents as regards to his citizenship/citizen of India. (iv) Seller of the land must have and submit latest ROR of the land (Khatian). (v) seller of the land must produce certificate from Tehsildar of the concerned T.K. regarding his/her clear possession over the land as well as certificate of free from encumbrances that the land is not hypothecated to any Bank/Society or to any person. (vi) a land with multiple sharer must produce clear bantannama as to his share of land. (v) seller of the land must produce certificate from Tehsildar of the concerned T.K. regarding his/her clear possession over the land as well as certificate of free from encumbrances that the land is not hypothecated to any Bank/Society or to any person. (vi) a land with multiple sharer must produce clear bantannama as to his share of land. (vii) all other conditions laid down under Rules, Act and instruction of the Government issued time to time. All Sub-Registry Officers of the District must exercise his power with utmost care and lapses on any part will be firmly dealt with law. Yours faithfully, (Sd/- Balin Debbarma) Addl. District Magistrate & Collector) South Tripura, Udaipur. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhoumik, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. B Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The questions, which arise, in the present writ petition, are: Whether the District Registrar has the power to issue such a circular/order as the one under challenge in the present case and whether this Court shall sustain the directions, so issued by him, for compliance before a deed is registered? The answer to these questions really require close and dispassionate examination of each of the directions given by the impugned circular/order, dated 30-03-2011. 3. The first direction contained in Clause (i) requires that at the time of execution of a sale deed, the buyer and seller must be present. This direction is wholly contrary to the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, 'the Registration Act') inasmuch as Section 32 thereof makes it clear that a document, which is compulsorily required to be registered or a document, whose registration is optional, shall be presented, at the proper registration office, by a person executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order. 4. Thus, Section 32, nowhere, requires that the buyer and/or the seller has to be present at the time of registration of a sale deed. What is required is the presence of the executant of the document. The executant may be the seller himself, his representative, assignee, agent or power of attorney holder. 4. Thus, Section 32, nowhere, requires that the buyer and/or the seller has to be present at the time of registration of a sale deed. What is required is the presence of the executant of the document. The executant may be the seller himself, his representative, assignee, agent or power of attorney holder. The direction, therefore, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, District Registrar, that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, buyer and seller must be present, is beyond the powers of the District Registrar and cannot be sustained. 5. Coming to the direction, given by Clause (ii) of the said circular/order, that the buyer and seller shall present their respective photo identity cards, it may be noted that Section 32(a), having been introduced by amendment, w.e.f. 24.09.2001, requires that every person, presenting any document, at the proper registration office, under Section 32, shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document provided that where such a document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photographs and fingerprints of each, buyer and seller of such property, mentioned in the document, shall also be affixed to the document. 6. Thus, what is required, under Section 32(a), is that every person, presenting any document at the proper registration office, shall affix his passport size photograph and fingerprints to the document and where such a document relates to the transfer of ownership of immovable property, the passport size photographs and fingerprints of both, the buyer as well as seller of the property, mentioned in the document, shall also be affixed to the document. 7. In the present case, the direction, given by the District Registrar, Udaipur, was that the buyer and seller must present photo identity cards, which is, strictly speaking, not required under the statute and cannot, therefore, be insisted upon unless it can be shown that a photo identity card can be issued under any statute or guidelines issued by the Government. The respondents, in the present case, have not been able to show that anyone is authorised, in the State of Tripura, to issue photo identity cards to the general public. In such a situation, insistence upon production of photo identity card by the buyer and seller, as mentioned in the impugned circular/order, cannot be sustained. 8. The respondents, in the present case, have not been able to show that anyone is authorised, in the State of Tripura, to issue photo identity cards to the general public. In such a situation, insistence upon production of photo identity card by the buyer and seller, as mentioned in the impugned circular/order, cannot be sustained. 8. Coming to Clause (iii) of the said circular/order, it may be noted that Clause (iii) requires that the buyer must present the relevant documents as regards his citizenship/citizen of India. It needs to be noted that under the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and transfer of immovable property in India) Regulations, 2000, a foreigner needs permission from the Reserve Bank of India to buy land in India. It is not, therefore, wholly illegal, as a precautionary measure, to ask a buyer to produce his document in respect of citizenship of India. This direction cannot, therefore, be said to be wholly illegal inasmuch as it helps in the identity of the buyer in the sense whether the buyer is an Indian or not. 9. Turning to Clause (iv) of the said circular/order, which requires that seller of the land must submit latest ROR (record of right) of the land i.e.. khatian, it may be mentioned that there is no law, which requires the seller of the land to submit record of rights of the land to the registering authority on presentation of the document for registration, whether the document is compulsorily registerable or its registration is optional. This direction cannot, therefore, be sustained. 10. Similarly, the requirement, embodied in Clause (v) of the said circular/order, that the seller of the land must produce certificate from Tehsildar of the concerned, T.K. regarding his/her clear possession over the land as well as a certificate that the land is not hypothecated to any bank/society or to any person, is also not supported by any law inasmuch as there is no law, which requires production of non-encumbrance certificate at the time of presenting a document of sale for registration. This direction, therefore, issued by the District Registrar, Uadipur, requiring production of non-encumbrance certificate, is not sustainable in law. 11. This direction, therefore, issued by the District Registrar, Uadipur, requiring production of non-encumbrance certificate, is not sustainable in law. 11. When one comes to the direction contained in Clause (vi) of the said circular/order, which lays down that the seller of a land with multiple sharers, must produce clear bantannama (i.e., partition deed) as regards his share of the land, it transpires that this condition, which the respondent No. 2 has put, is not only beyond the law, but contrary to law. Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under: 44. Transfer by one co-owner.--Where one of two or more co-owners of immovable property legally competent in that behalf transfers his share of such property or any interest therein, the transferee acquires as to such share or interest, and so far as is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the transferor's right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property, and to enforce a partition of the same, but subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred. Where the transferee of a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle him to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the house. 12. From a bare reading of Section 44, it becomes clear that there is no bar in presenting a document for sale by one of the co-owners of an immovable property as regards his share in such property or his interest in such property. The only limitation would be that the transferee would acquire right, title and interest to the share or the interest which his transferor has in the property; but the consent of other co-owners of an immovable property is not at all required for sale of the property by one of the co-sharers. As the direction, contained in Clause (vi), is contrary to law, this direction is untenable in law and cannot be sustained. 13. As the direction, contained in Clause (vi), is contrary to law, this direction is untenable in law and cannot be sustained. 13. As regards the direction, contained in Clause (vii) of the circular/order, namely, that all other conditions laid down under Rules, Act and instruction of the Government, issued from time to time, shall be followed, one can safely hold that this direction cannot be said to be bad in law inasmuch as all conditions, which have been imposed, under any enactment or the rules or by the Government must be abided by every seller or buyer, as the case may be, until the enactment, rules or Government's instructions are interfered with by the Court. 14. What emerges from the above discussion is that the directions, contained in Clauses (i)(ii)(iv)(v) and (vi) of the said circular/order, are not supported by law, these directions are beyond the powers of the respondent No. 2, namely, District Registrar (Addl. District Magistrate & Collector), Udaipur, South Tripura; hence, these directions cannot be allowed to stand good on record. As far as the direction, contained in Clause (iii), is concerned, the same is not contrary to law nor are the directions, contained in Clause (vii), can be said to be bad in law. These directions cannot, therefore, be interfered with. 15. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition partly succeeds. While the directions contained, in Clauses (i) (ii) (iv) (v) and (vi) of the said circular/order, are hereby set aside and quashed, the directions, contained in Clauses (iii) and (vii), thereof, are not interfered with. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of.