SATYA PAL ANAND v. STATE OF M. P. — 2015 DIGILAW 1085 (SC)

JUDGMENT : V. Gopala Gowda, J. — I have gone through the judgment of my learned brother Judge, Justice Dipak Misra, wherein certain relevant facts have been adverted to by my learned brother on the contentious legal issues urged on behalf of the parties. My learned brother has also adverted to the relevant provisions under Sections 20, 21, 22 and 32 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 2. My learned brother Judge has also referred to the full bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanala Malleshwari v. Anantula Sayamma AIR 2007 AP 57 , the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Anr. AIR 2010 Madras 18 and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub Registrar, Bangalore & Anr. AIR 2000 Karnataka 46 My learned brother judge has also referred the decision of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207 , wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant therein, relying on the Full Bench decision of Yanala Malleshwari (supra). 3. I have also taken into consideration the fact that the sale deed of the property in dispute was executed by the Society in favour of the mother of the appellant on 22.03.1962 in respect of the plot involved in this proceeding. The contention urged on behalf of the Society is that as there was no construction raised by the appellant or his deceased mother on the said plot of land and therefore, there has been a violation of the Bye-laws of the Society, as claimed by the Society and hence, it has executed the Extinguishment Deed dated 09.08.2001 with respect to the said plot of land and cancelled the already registered absolute sale deed in favour of the appellant’s mother dated 22.03.1962. 4. On the basis of the registration of the Extinguishment Deed with respect to the said plot of land, the subsequent allotment of the said plot of land took place and the sale deed was registered by the society in favour of Mrs. Manjeet Kaur-respondent No.5, who further alienated the said plot and registered another sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. Manjeet Kaur-respondent No.5, who further alienated the said plot and registered another sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 5. My learned brother Judge has also referred to the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in SLP (C) No. 13255 of 2012 (Satya Pal Anand v. Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society & Ors.), arising out of the order dated 03.08.2011, passed in Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2008 by the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in relation to the appointment of receiver with respect to the said plot of land. This Court held that since the respondent No.5-Mrs. Manjeet Kaur was already in possession of the property in dispute and the appellant had received an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- by way of a compromise deed, there was no justification for the appointment of the receiver in the light of the fact that there was a pending dispute between the parties under Section 69 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Registrar of Societies. Hence, the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Court. My learned brother, in the present case has also based his findings on similar reasons. 6. I respectfully dissent with the said view taken by my learned brother Judge by giving the following reasons. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent No.4-Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Bhopal (for short “the Society”) had allotted the said plot of land in favour of the appellant’s mother namely, Smt. Veeravali Anand and it had executed the absolute sale deed dated 22.03.1962 with regard to the said plot of land in her favour and the same was registered on 30.03.1962 before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The mother of the appellant died on 12.06.1988, leaving behind the appellant and his sister as her legal heirs to succeed her intestate property comprising of the said plot of land. 8. Subsequent to the death of the appellant’s mother, the Society, represented by its office bearer has executed an extinguished deed dated 09.08.2001, unilaterally cancelling their already registered sale-deed with regard to the said plot of land. Thereafter, on the strength of the extinguished deed, the Society executed a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent No.5- Mrs. Manjit Kaur who in turn has executed another sale deed dated 11.07.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 (Mrs. Minakshi and Mr. S.C. Sharma). Thereafter, on the strength of the extinguished deed, the Society executed a registered sale deed dated 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent No.5- Mrs. Manjit Kaur who in turn has executed another sale deed dated 11.07.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 (Mrs. Minakshi and Mr. S.C. Sharma). The said documents have been fraudulently registered by them which is against the acquired legal rights of the appellant on the said plot of land, the same is void ab initio in law as it is impermissible under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 read with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 9. There is also a reference with regard to the taking of the consideration amount of Rs.6,50,000/- by the appellant from the respondent no.5 vide the execution of the Deed of Compromise dated 06.07.2004. The appellant has also raised a dispute in that regard under Section 64 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Society, Bhopal which is pending in respect of the said plot of land. Besides this, some of the litigations between the parties are pending before different forum i.e. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, State Co-operative Tribunal and in the High Court. 10. The appellant filed an application before the Sub-Registrar (Registration), seeking the cancellation of the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 executed by the Society against the appellant’s plot of land. By order dated 28.06.2008, the Sub-Registrar (Registration) dismissed the application of the appellant, holding that since the question of sustainability of the extinguished deed dated 09.08.2001 and interpretation of Clause 43(1) of the Bye-Laws of Society are still pending before Sub-Registrar, Co-operative Society and various other competent forum, the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar is limited only to the extent to register the document. The Sub-Registrar further held that if any of the parties want its cancellation, then the relevant party may file for the registration of the cancellation deed with regard to the said plot of land. The appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Inspector General, Registration and the same was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable and further directed the appellant to approach the competent court in this regard. The appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before the Inspector General, Registration and the same was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable and further directed the appellant to approach the competent court in this regard. Therefore, the aforesaid Writ Petition was filed before the High Court by the appellant wherein he has questioned the correctness of the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the Inspector General, Registration, Bhopal wherein it has been held that the Inspector General of Registration has the powers of only general superintendence over the registration officers and to make Rules in that regard. He is however, not empowered to hear any proceedings against the order of Sub-Registrar. 11. The High Court after adverting to the aforesaid facts and noting the decision of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment of Yanala Malleshwari (supra) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. Inspector General of Registration AIR 2010 Madras 18 and further, referring to Section 17(1)(b) read with Rule 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules, and other judgments of this Court in the cases of Government of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan AIR 1961 SC 787 and Government of Uttar Pradesh v. Khan, has held that as soon as the registering officer has registered the documents presented to him for registration, his function of performance for such document produced before him is over and therefore, he becomes a functus officio and does not have the power even to impound the document under Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908. Further, the High Court has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in favour of the respondent Society. The correctness of the same is questioned in this Civil Appeal urging various legal grounds. 12. Further, the High Court has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy (supra) and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in favour of the respondent Society. The correctness of the same is questioned in this Civil Appeal urging various legal grounds. 12. Having regard to the facts, the rival legal contentions and the grounds urged in the writ petition and in these proceedings on behalf of the parties, the following question of law would arise for my consideration: “Whether the appellant is entitled to seek for the relief of cancellation of the registered documents dated 09.08.2001, 21.04.2004 and 11.07.2006, registered with respect to the immovable property, i.e. plot No.7-B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal?” 13. The said point is required to be answered in favour of the appellant for the following reasons: It is an undisputed fact that the Society had executed an absolute sale deed dated 22.03.1962 in favour of the deceased mother of the appellant, Smt. Veeravali which was registered on 30.03.1962. It is also not in dispute that she died on 12.06.1988, leaving behind the appellant and his sister to succeed her intestate property. The respondent-Society has also not disputed the fact that the appellant is the legal heir of the deceased Smt. Veeravali Anand, in whose favour the sale deed was executed for the said plot of land. 14. The said sale deed was unilaterally cancelled by the Society by way of executing an extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001, with regard to the said plot of land and thereafter, on the strength of such extinguished deed, the Society again executed a registered sale deed on 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent No.5 who in turn executed another sale deed dated 11.07.2006 in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 15. The contention urged by the appellant is that the action of the Society and the Sub-Registrar, who has cancelled the initially registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Veeravali Anand by registering the extinguished deed unilaterally, is contrary to the statutory provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has been relied upon, wherein this Court has held thus: “4. In this regard, the judgment of this Court in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has been relied upon, wherein this Court has held thus: “4. In our opinion, there was no need for the appellants to approach the civil court as the said cancellation deed dated 04.08.2005 as well as registration of the same was wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. For illustration, if A transfers a piece of land to B by a registered sale deed, then, if it is not disputed that A had the title to the land, that title passes to B on the registration of the sale deed (retrospectively from the date of the execution of the same) and B then becomes the owner of the land. If A wants to subsequently get that sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or else he can request B to sell the land back to A but by no stretch of imagination, can a cancellation deed be executed or registered. This is unheard of in law. 5. In this connection, we may also refer to Rule 26(k)(i) relating to Andhra Pradesh under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, which states: “(i) The registering officer shall ensure at the time of preparation for registration of cancellation deeds of previously registered deed of conveyances on sale before him that such cancellation deeds are executed by all the executant and claimant parties to the previously registered conveyance on sale and that such cancellation deed is accompanied by a declaration showing natural consent or orders of a competent Civil or High Court or State or Central Government annulling the transaction contained in the previously registered deed of conveyance on sale: Provided that the registering officer shall dispense with the execution of cancellation deeds by executant and claimant parties to the previously registered deeds of conveyances on sale before him if the cancellation deed is executed by a Civil Judge or a government officer competent to execute government orders declaring the properties contained in the previously registered conveyance on sale to be government or assigned or endowment lands or properties not registerable by any provision of law.” A reading of the above Rule also supports the observations we have made above. It is only when a sale deed is cancelled by a competent court that the cancellation deed can be registered and that too after notice to the parties concerned. In this case, neither is there any declaration by a competent court nor was there any notice to the parties. Hence, this Rule also makes it clear that both the cancellation deed as well as registration thereof were wholly void and non est and meaningless transactions.” 16. Further reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of E.R. Kalaivan v. The Inspector General of Registration Chennai & Anr. (supra) wherein the powers of the Registrar with regard to the cancellation of the document have been elaborately discussed. The relevant paras of the case read thus: “12. In this context, we may also refer to Section 32A of the Indian Registration Act providing that all such deeds shall be signed by the vendor as well as the purchaser and the same shall also bear the finger prints and photographs. Section 34 of the Act also needs a reference, whereby the Registering Authority is mandated to hold an enquiry in respect of the validity of the document presented for registration. Having regard to the above provisions, in our opinion, a registered sale deed, if sought to be cancelled, registration of such deed must be at the instance of both the parties viz., bilaterally and not unilaterally. Section 34A of the Act, whereby the Registering Authority is to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. A sale is essentially an executed contract between two parties on mutual agreed conditions. Question is as to whether such contract can be unilaterally rescinded, particularly, in a case of sale deed. In this context, we may refer to Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides that contract which need not be performed. By that provision, any novation, rescission and alteration of a contract can be made only bilaterally. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. ( 2004 (1) SCC 12 ). XXX XXX XXX 19. A deed of cancellation will amount to rescission of contract and if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, any rescission must be only bilaterally. See City Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. ( 2004 (1) SCC 12 ). XXX XXX XXX 19. That apart, on the facts of this case, our attention is not drawn to any of the specific provision under the Registration Act empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration on the ground that the sale consideration was not paid and consequently, received by the vendor. Further, in our opinion, when the Registrar satisfies himself on the perusal of the document, wherein it is stated that the full sale consideration is received and on such satisfaction, entertain the document for registration, cannot thereafter be conferred with a power for cancellation of the deed on the ground that the full sale consideration was not paid and received by the vendor. Conferring such power on the Registrar would tantamount to conferring a power to decide the disputed questions. That apart, as already stated, in the absence of any provision specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration, without the signature of both the vendor and the purchaser, the deed cannot be entertained. For the said reason, we find no infirmity in the impugned circular issued by the Inspector General of Registration.” 17. Thus, the decision of this Court and the Madras High Court in the cases referred to supra, aptly apply to the fact situation of the present case. In the present case also such an extinguishment deed, which is unilaterally registered would be rescinded, particularly, in the case of sale deed or extinguishment deed. In this context, Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would come into play which provides that if the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed. Thus, for any novation, rescission and alteration of the contract, it can be made only bilaterally and with the amicable consent of both the parties. Thus, for any novation, rescission and alteration of the contract, it can be made only bilaterally and with the amicable consent of both the parties. Thus, a deed of cancellation of the earlier registered sale deed executed in favour of the Smt. Veeravali Anand would amount to an illegal rescission of the absolute sale deed because if the issue in question is viewed from the application of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, then it is clear that any rescission must be done only bilaterally. 18. In the case on hand, undisputedly, the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 and the cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.03.1962 in respect of the said plot of land involved in this case is unilaterally done by applying the clause 43(1) of the Bye-laws of the Society which has been amended in the year 1991 bearing No.Panji/ Gram Nirman 90/24 dated 02.01.1992, communicated to the Society by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Bhopal. The said clause cannot have a retrospective effect with regard to the cancellation of the sale deed in the name of the mother of the appellant and for executing extinguished deed with regard to the said plot of land as the cancellation deed which was registered on 09.08.2001 is only a subterfuge. The said clause of the Society by-laws, cannot override the statutory provisions under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act reads thus: “31. When cancellation may be ordered: (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.” 19. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.” 19. Therefore, the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed with regard to the said plot of land against the appellant is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963, wherein the cancellation of any instrument can be done only within three years, ‘when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him’. Therefore, the respondent-Society had no right to unilaterally cancel the absolute sale deed executed in favour of the appellant’s mother in the year 1962 with regard to the said plot of land in the year 2001 after lapse of more than 39 years which is totally impermissible in law, both for the Society and the Sub-Registrar. The respondent has neither any authority under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 nor under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to unilaterally cancel the sale deed without the authority of law and as such the registration of the document by the sub-Registrar amounts to playing fraud on the power provided to him under law which is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions and the Constitution of India. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 72 , wherein the Constitution Bench, with reference to the House of Lords, has clearly laid down the aforesaid principle as under : “6. If this were put aside, the second ground of attack on the orders may be viewed from two related aspects—of ultra vires pure and simple and secondly as an infraction of the rule that every power vested in a public body or authority has to be used honestly, bona fide and reasonably, though the two often slide into each other. If this were put aside, the second ground of attack on the orders may be viewed from two related aspects—of ultra vires pure and simple and secondly as an infraction of the rule that every power vested in a public body or authority has to be used honestly, bona fide and reasonably, though the two often slide into each other. Thus Sir Lyman Duff, speaking (in Municipal Council of Sydney v. Campbell) in the context of an allegation that the statutory power vested in a municipal corporation to acquire property had been used in bad faith which was held to have been proved, stated: “A body such as the Municipal Council of Sydney, authorised to take land compulsorily for specified purposes, will not be permitted to exercise its powers for different purposes, and if it attempts to do so, the Courts will interfere. As Lord Loreburn said, in Marquess of Clanricarde v. Congested Districts Board ‘Whether it does so or not is a question of fact.’ Where the proceedings of the Council, are attacked upon this ground, the party impeaching those proceedings must, of course, prove that the Council, though professing to exercise its powers for the statutory purpose, is in fact employing them in furtherance of some ulterior object.” Similarly, in Short v. Poole Corporation Pollock M.R. observed: “The appellants (represented before the Court by Maugham K.C.— afterwards Lord Maugham) do not contest the proposition that where an authority is constituted under statute to carry out-statutory powers with which is entrusted it, ... if an attempt is made to exercise those powers corruptly—as under the influence of bribery, or mala fides — for some improper purpose, such an attempt must fail. It is null and void: see Reg. v. Governors of Darlington School”. In the same case Warrington, L.J. said: “No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in. bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be that of the body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative. It may be also possible to prove that an act of the public body, though performed in good faith and without the taint of corruption, was so clearly founded on alien and irrelevant grounds as to be outside the authority conferred upon the body, and therefore inoperative. It may be also possible to prove that an act of the public body, though performed in good faith and without the taint of corruption, was so clearly founded on alien and irrelevant grounds as to be outside the authority conferred upon the body, and therefore inoperative. It is difficult to suggest any act which would be held ultra vires under this head though performed bona fide.”” 20. For the aforesaid reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the Society has no right to re-allot the said plot of land in favour of the respondent No. 5 by cancelling the already registered sale deed in favour of the appellant’s mother in the year 1962 which was an absolute sale deed. Further, registering the sale deed on 21.04.2004 in favour of respondent no.5, who in turn sold the said plot of land in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, is void ab initio in the light of the fact that according to the bye-Laws of the Society, Mrs. Manjeet-respondent no.5, could not have come in possession of the said plot in the first place as her husband has already got a plot allotted to him in the very same Society. Therefore, the transfer of the said plot of land via subsequent sale deeds are void ab initio in law and therefore, liable to be set aside. 21. For the above stated reasons, it is clear that the appellant has got a valid constitutional right over the said plot of land as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, wherein it has been stated that the deprivation of property without the authority of law is totally impermissible in law. Merely because the cancellation of the void extinguishment deed with regard to the said plot of land and the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.5 has not been sought for by the appellant by approaching the civil court, it does not disentitle him for seeking the relief with regard to the said plot of land for the reason that the cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.03.1962 after a lapse of 39 years has been done without the authority of law by the Society. The subsequent actions of re-registering the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.5 and thereafter in favour of respondents Nos.6 and 7 are void ab initio in law. The subsequent actions of re-registering the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.5 and thereafter in favour of respondents Nos.6 and 7 are void ab initio in law. Thus, this Court has the power to closely examine the same in these proceedings having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. The scope of the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been discussed in a catena of cases. In the case of Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 297 , Chinappa Reddy, J. observed as under: “4.... Article 136 of the Constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with a plenitude of plenary, appellate power over all Courts and Tribunals in India. The power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But, the very nature of the power has led the Court to set limits to itself within which to exercise such power. It is now the well established practice of this Court to permit the invocation of the power Under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. But within the restrictions imposed by itself, this Court has the undoubted power to interfere even with findings of fact making no distinction between judgment of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings, has acted “perversely or otherwise improperly”....” More recently, in the case of Ganga Kumar Shrivastav v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 , this Court laid down the following principles as regards the power of this Court under Article 136: “10. ..... i) The powers of this Court Under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of the fact save in exceptional circumstances. ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court if the High Court has acted perversely or otherwise improperly. iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power Under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power Under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act upon it. v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is vitiated by any error of law of procedure or found contrary to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record.” As can be seen from the above case law, the power vested with this Court is quite wide and the Court can examine any case to prevent miscarriage of justice. 23. Therefore, the High Court ought to have granted the relief to the appellant by holding that the extinguishment deed executed with regard to the appellant’s said plot of land on 09.08.2001, without following the procedure contemplated under Section 31(1) & (2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is void ab initio in law. The same is required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as there is a grave miscarriage of justice and the septuagenarian appellant has been suffering unnecessarily for the past 14 years at the hands of the Society and the Sub-Registrar, who have violated the provisions of law and deprived the appellant of his valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India upon the said property. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for in this appeal. 24. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents, namely that this Court has already dismissed the SLP No.13255 of 2012 filed by the appellant earlier, wherein, this Court has examined the correctness of the order dated 08.11.2008 of the Joint Registrar passed in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction with regard to the appointment of the receiver under Section 64 of the M.P. State Cooperative Societies Act 1960, at the instance of the respondents, has no relevance to the reliefs sought for in the present appeal. The prayer sought for in the present appeal is with regard to cancellation of the extinguishment deed and the subsequent sale deed executed by Society in favour of respondent No.5, who in turn has executed another sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with regard to the said plot of land. Therefore, the prayer in the present appeal is totally different from the one in SLP No.13255 of 2012. The order dated 17.07.2013 passed in SLP No. 13255 of 2012 by this Court, at para 4, is very clear with regard to the extinguishment deed which reads thus: “4. It appears that after lapse of 40 years, the first respondent purported to have cancelled the sale made in favour of the petitioner’s deceased mother. On 9.8.2001, a deed styled as Extinguishment Deed came to be executed by the first respondent before the Sub-registrar, Bhopal-the legality of which deed is required to be examined separately. However, we do not propose to say anything at this stage.” 25. In so far as the document of compromise deed dated 06.07.2004 is concerned, the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- allegedly voluntarily received by the appellant from the respondent No.5 to put an end to the dispute over the said property is also a void transaction, as the same has been done during the pendency of the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar in relation to the dispute. The said compromise deed is void ab initio in law and the same cannot be put against the appellant so as to deny him the relief sought by him in the present appeal. Apart from the said reason, the notice dated 12.07.2007 served upon the appellant by the lawyer of respondent No.5 has rescinded the agreement dated 06.07.2004 and she has claimed the refund of 6,50,000/-, to be returned with interest to her, failing which she will file a suit for claim for payment of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest. The said notice is produced at Annexure ‘P-6’ in the proceedings. The relevant clause 4 of the said notice is extracted hereunder which reads thus:- “4. That after receipt of money by you frivolous disputes are being raised by you. By raising unnecessary disputes you have violated compromise dated 6.7.2004. Therefore, my client being constrained (makes demand of the amount paid to you). The relevant clause 4 of the said notice is extracted hereunder which reads thus:- “4. That after receipt of money by you frivolous disputes are being raised by you. By raising unnecessary disputes you have violated compromise dated 6.7.2004. Therefore, my client being constrained (makes demand of the amount paid to you). Therefore, you are liable to return and pay to my client the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakh and fifty thousand). Therefore, by means of the notice you are informed that the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakh and fifty thousand) and interest thereon at bank rate from date of receipt till the date of payment be returned to my client within 30 days of receipt of this notice and obtain a receipt in writing after the said period my client shall be entitled to take action before you in the court of law in accordance with law…” In view of the aforesaid demand notice, since the agreement has been rescinded, it does not subsist and the High Court by placing reliance upon the same has committed an error in fact and in law and has wrongfully denied the relief to the appellant even though the same was brought to the notice of the High Court by the appellant in the proceedings before it. For the reasons stated supra, I have to grant the reliefs in favour of the appellant as prayed by him and quash the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 along with the subsequent sale deeds registered in favour of the respondent No.5 who in turn has sold property in favour of respondent Nos.6 and 7 without the authority of law. The sale deed can be cancelled under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by the competent civil court if the same is challenged within the period of limitation stipulated under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the facts are undisputed in the case on hand and the respondent Society, after the lapse of 39 years has erroneously and illegally cancelled the absolute sale deed registered in favour of the appellant’s mother, the appellant has acquired a valid and absolute title to the property in question and the same could not have been cancelled by the respondent Society and the Sub-Registrar as it is void ab initio in law. Hence, the High Court should have responsibly exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction and should have examined the documents of the sale deed with respect to the relevant provisions of the M.P Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, 1962 and the Bye-laws of the Society. The cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant’s mother in the year 1962 by way of the extinguishment deed could not have been registered by the Sub-Registrar as he is not empowered to do so. Hence, for want of the competent jurisdiction, in registering such document, the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to annul the extinguishment deed and the transactions of the subsequent sale deeds, which has not been done by it. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of CAG v. K.S. Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679 , wherein it has been held thus: “19. Even had the Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus giving the directions which it did, if circumstances of the case justified such directions, the High Court would have been entitled in law to do so for even the courts in England could have issued a writ of mandamus giving such directions. Almost a hundred and thirty years ago, Martin, B., in Mayor of Rochester v. Regina said: “But, were there no authority upon the subject, we should be prepared upon principle to affirm the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench. That court has power, by the prerogative writ of mandamus, to amend all errors which tend to the oppression of the subject or other misgovernment, and ought to be used when the law has provided no specific remedy, and justice and good government require that there ought to be one for the execution of the common law or the provisions of a statute: Comyn’s Digest, Mandamus (A).... Instead of being astute to discover reasons for not applying this great constitutional remedy for error and misgovernment, we think it our duty to be vigilant to apply it in every case to which, by any reasonable construction, it can be made applicable.” The principle enunciated in the above case was approved and followed in King v. Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanle y . In Hochtief Gammon case this Court pointed out that the powers of the courts in relation to the orders of the government or an officer of the government who has been conferred any power under any statute, which apparently confer on them absolute discretionary powers, are not confined to cases where such power is exercised or refused to be exercised on irrelevant considerations or on erroneous ground or mala fide, and in such a case a party would be entitled to move the High Court for a writ of mandamus. In Padfiel d v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the House of Lords held that where Parliament had conferred a discretion on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to appoint a committee of investigation so that it could be used to promote the policy and objects of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, which were to be determined by the construction of the Act which was a matter of law for the court and though there might be reasons which would justify the Minister in refusing to refer a complaint to a committee of investigation, the Minister’s discretion was not unlimited and if it appeared that the effect of his refusal to appoint a committee of investigation was to frustrate the policy of the Act, the court was entitled to interfere by an order of mandamus. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., vol. I, para 89, it is stated that the purpose of an order of mandamus “is to remedy defects of justice; and accordingly it will issue, to the end that justice may be done, in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right; and it may issue in cases where, although there is an alternative legal remedy, yet that mode of redress is less convenient, beneficial and effectual.” 20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” (Emphasis laid by me) 26. Further reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani (1989) 2 SCC 691 , wherein it has been held thus: “20. The term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The words “any person or authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. 21. In Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual this Court said that a mandamus can issue against a person or body to carry out the duties placed on them by the statutes even though they are not public officials or statutory body. It was observed: “It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A niandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purpose of fulfilling public responsibilities.” 22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: “To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract.”7 We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition.” 27. Further, this Court has laid down the following principles with respect to the writ of certiorari in the 7 judge bench decision in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233 : “….(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of “certiorari” if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by “certiorari” but not a mere wrong decision. What is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.” 28. Thus, the High Court has failed to exercise its discretionary power which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, thereby, depriving the valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to the appellant. Thus, the High Court has failed to exercise its discretionary power which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice, thereby, depriving the valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to the appellant. I, hereby, set aside the said order of the learned single Judge of the High Court and quash the impugned instruments i.e. the extinguishment deed dated 09.08.2001 and the subsequent sale deeds dated 21.04.2004 and 11.07.2006 and further direct the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to vacate the said property and hand over the possession of the same to the appellant. The respondents are further directed to pay the appellant a compensation amount of Rs.10 Lakhs for his sufferings and the injustice caused to him by the society for the last 14 years as he was deprived of his right to enjoy the property on account of the arbitrary and unilateral action taken by the society in cancelling the sale deed in respect of the property in question executed in favour of his deceased mother. 29. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.