Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 701 (RAJ)

Baljinder Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-24

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Sri Ganganagar, refusing to register the sale deed of the agriculture land purchased by him from one Shri Sahab Singh S/ o Kulwant Singh. 2. The relevant facts are that Sahab Singh S/o Kulwant Singh having Vi share in the joint khatedari land ad measuring 5.060 hectare comprising murabba no.43, Kila no.l to 4, 7 to 14 and 17 to 24, sold 1.090 hectare i.e. 4 bighas and 6 biswas land in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.3 lacs, vide sale deed dated 19.4.12. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Sri Ganganagar. However, the same was returned by the Sub Registrar without registration with the endorsement "Court Stay & Excess Ceiling Limit". 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, which stands dismissed by the order impugned observing that in ceiling case No.4/05, vide order dated 30.3.10, the Authorized Officer has issued directions to take possession of the land held by the person concerned in the ceiling proceedings and a stay order passed by the Board of Revenue is operative and therefore, the order passed by the Sub Registrar in refusing to register the document does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registering Officer is in no way concerned with the validity of the documents presented before it for registration and therefore, the registration of the document cannot be refused even if the executant was dealing with the property not belonging to him. Learned counsel submitted that the refusal to register the documents on the part of the Sub Registrar ignoring the provisions of Rule 39 of Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules") is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the Sub Registrar in refusing to register the document without apprising the petitioner the reason therefore and giving him an opportunity of hearing, is ex facie illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the Sub Registrar in refusing to register the document without apprising the petitioner the reason therefore and giving him an opportunity of hearing, is ex facie illegal and violative of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Additional District Collector in the ceiling proceedings stands stayed by the Board of Revenue and therefore, even otherwise, no order directing taking over of the possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit in the hands of the person concerned, is operative as on the date. Learned counsel submitted that the entire land in the hands of the person concerned is not found to be beyond the ceiling limit and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Sub Registrar presuming the land in question to be affected by the order passed in the ceiling proceedings, is absolutely unjustified. Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the matter of Smt. Kishni Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(2) WLN 102 and the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Krishna Gopal Kataria & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 328 and Valid Family Charitable Trust & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2012 Punjab & Haryana 1, learned counsel submitted that the Registering Officer is empowered to refuse the registration of a document only if it is not properly executed or presented or subject matter of the document lay beyond his territorial jurisdiction, as the case may be and for no other reason. 5. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that proviso to Rule 39 of the Rules mandates that the Registering Officer shall not register the document unless he is satisfied that the property does not belong to the Government or any local body and therefore, in the instant case, since the land is already directed to be acquired in ceiling proceedings, the Registering Officer has committed no illegality in refusing to register the document. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of B. Ramesh v. The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Barkatpura Hyderabad & Anr., AIR 1990 AP 307 . 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of B. Ramesh v. The Special Officer & Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling Barkatpura Hyderabad & Anr., AIR 1990 AP 307 . 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Indisputably, the powers of the Registering Officer have been clearly defined and demarcated under the Act. As per provisions of Section 21 of the Act, the Registrar cannot accept a non-testamentary document relating to immovable property for registration unless it contains a description of such property sufficient to identify the same. The scope of enquiry in respect of the document presented for registration before the Registering Officer is dealt with under Section 34 of the Act, where under the Registering Officer is empowered to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it proposed to have been executed; satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document and in case of any person appearing as representative assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so appearing. As per provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 35 of the Act, if all the persons executing the document appear personally before the Registering Officer and are personally known to him or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the documents, or if in case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative assign or agent admits the execution or a person executing the document is dead and his representative or assign appears before the Registering Officer and admits the execution, the Registering Officer shall register the document as directed in Sections 58 to 61 inclusive. As per provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 35, if any person by whom the document proposed to be executed denies its execution or if any such person appears to be minor, an idiot or a lunatic or if any person by whom the document proposed to be executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its execution, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register the document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead. But in any case, no provision incorporated in the Act empowers the Registrar to enter into the dispute relating to title of the property, subject matter of the document and examine the validity of the document presented for registration. 8. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have relied upon Rule 39 of the Rules of 1955 in support of their contentions, which may be beneficially quoted: "39. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents.- Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as under:- (1) that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him: Provided that the registering officer shall not register the document unless he is satisfied himself that the property does not belong to the Government or any local body. (2) that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction: (3) that the transaction was fraudulent. (4) that the executant had not agreed to certain conditions of the document: (5) that the executant was not acquainted with the conditions of the document: (6) that the executant declared that he had been deceived into executing; and (7) that the executant is blind and cannot count. These and such like are matters for decision, if necessary, by competent Courts of law, and registering officers, as such, have nothing to do with them. If the document be presented in a proper manner, by a competent person, at the proper office, within the time allowed by law, and if the registering officer be satisfied that the alleged executant is the person he represents himself to be, and if such person admits execution, the registering officer is bound to register the document without regard to its possible effects. But the registering officer shall make a note of such objections of the kinds mentioned in grounds (1) to (7) above, as may be brought to his notice in the endorsement required by Section 58." 9. A bare perusal of Rule 39 makes it abundantly clear that the Registering Officer is not empowered to enter into a roving and fishing enquiry regarding the title of the executant over the property, subject matter of document presented for registration. A bare perusal of Rule 39 makes it abundantly clear that the Registering Officer is not empowered to enter into a roving and fishing enquiry regarding the title of the executant over the property, subject matter of document presented for registration. Of course by virtue of proviso to Clause (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules, the Registering Officer is prohibited from registering the document unless he is satisfied that the property does not belong to Government or any local body. In the considered opinion of this Court, the scope of enquiry by the Registering Officer in terms of the said proviso is limited and it is only where on the basis of the material on record, it is apparent that the property subject matter of the document presented for registration is the property of the Government or any local body, the registration could be refused by the Registering Officer. But in the garb of the said provision, the Registering Officer cannot assume the authority to adjudicate the dispute regarding the title of the property. Rather, in such situation, the Registering Officer is required to register the document while making a note of the objection as may be brought to his notice in the endorsement required under Section 58 of the Act. 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is a matter of record that the land in excess of the ceiling limits in the hands of Rud Singh and his sons stands determined vide order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the Authorized Officer. It is common ground between the parties that the execution of the order passed by the Authorized Officer as aforesaid, stands stayed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal preferred by the sons of Rud Singh. Moreover, as per the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the Authorized Officer, out of 122.16 bighas land in the hands of Rud Singh and his sons, only 76.05 bighas land is found to be in excess of the ceiling limits and therefore, as on the date, the entire land in the hands of Rud Singh and his sons, is not liable to be acquired pursuant to the ceiling proceedings. It is to be noticed that as per second proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 30E of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the option to be afforded to the assessee to surrender the surplus land is subject to the limitation that where the persons surrendering excess land holds lands of which some are encumbered and some are not encumbered, unencumbered land shall be surrendered in preference to encumbered land and therefore, the question as to which land should be acquired by the State shall be decided by the Authorized Officer at the appropriate stage. Further, if the land sought to be transferred is affected by the ceiling proceedings and the transfer made is not recognized as valid, merely on account of registration of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, he cannot claim any right or title over the property. In this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the Registering Authority that the land in question being affected by the ceiling proceedings, the same belongs to the State Government, is not justified at this stage. 11. In view of the discussion above, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned passed by the Sub-Registrar refusing to register the document is set aside. The Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document in accordance with law, after making endorsement incorporating the objection raised regarding the pending ceiling proceedings in respect of the land subject matter of the document presented for registration. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.