Delhi High Court - Orders
Gaurav Goel vs Sub- Registrar Vi-C, Rohini & Ors on 25 March, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 358/2022
GAURAV GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Gaur with Mr. Pulkit
Srivastava and Mr. Kumud, Advs.
Versus
SUB- REGISTRAR VI-C, ROHINI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Ms. Jyoti
Mehra, Adv for R-1.
Ms. Prabhasahay Kaur, SC for DDA
with Mr. Keshav Sehgal and Ms.
Askshita Raina, Adv. for DDA.
Mr. Amit Mahaliyan, Adv. for BOB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 25.03.2022 This writ petition has been preferred for a direction being framed for the respondents to clarify the validity of title with respect to Plot No. 18, Pocket-17, Block-G, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, area admeasuring 90 sq. mtrs. The said relief is claimed by the petitioner on the ground of a perceived inherent defect in the title to the property which was claimed by the mortgagor.
The petitioner is an auction purchaser under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Pursuant to the confirmation of the sale in his favour, a sale certificate was also issued and it is pursuant to that sale that the petitioner had approached the concerned Sub-Registrar for registration.
It is at this stage that a dispute appears to have been raised with respect to the validity of the title which may have inhered in the mortgagor.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:30.03.2022 14:02:28Insofar as the Financial Institution is concerned and as per its return, it asserts that the mortgage was validly created in respect of the property and its claim was duly recognised by the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal and decreed. The Bank thus claims that it had all authority and jurisdiction to proceed against the property under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
While the petitioner refers to an asserted claim over the property raised by the DDA, it is nobody's case that the decree which was ultimately rendered by the Tribunal has either been varied or modified. The Court has also not been apprised of any challenge that DDA may have raised with regard to the decree granted by the Tribunal. Viewed in that light, the doubts and apprehension which are expressed by the petitioner are clearly misplaced.
That only leaves the Court to consider the recalcitrance on the part of the Sub-Registrar to effect the requisite registration. As is well settled the Sub-Registrar does not and cannot possibly assume any authority or jurisdiction to rule on the title of parties. This Court while dealing with the powers of the Registrar under the Registration Act, in Dinesh Takkar vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.[ 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5416] held thus:-
"11. Section 34 enjoins a Registering Officer to ensure that the persons executing the document or their representatives, assigns or agents appear before it and duly address the authority with respect to the execution of the instrument. In terms of sub-section (3) thereof, the Registering Authority is to enquire whether the document was executed by persons by whom it purports to have been executed, satisfying itself as to the identity of the persons appearing and thereafter proceed to register the instrument. Section 33 refers to the various forms of powers of attorney which would be recognised in law and would thus be deemed to be sufficient to evaluate the authority of the person acting as an attorney of the executing party and appearing before the Registering Officer for the purposes of registration of an instrument. Similar provisions with respect to the course of enquiry that must be undertaken and the subjects in respect of which Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:30.03.2022 14:02:28 satisfaction must be accorded by the Sub Registrar before proceeding to register an instrument stand engrafted in Section 35.
12. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is manifest that the authority of the Sub Registrar while discharging functions under the Act is clearly administrative in character. In any case the enquiries which are statutorily required to be undertaken by him cannot extend to or be recognised as conferring on him the powers to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a disposition or transfer. Those rights must be left to be determined by a competent court. All that the Sub Registrar is enjoined in law to do is to assure itself of the identity of persons who are stated to be parties to the instrument in question, ensure that the statutory formalities contemplated have been complied with and upon making due enquiries in that regard, proceed further to register the instrument. The Act nowhere contemplates the Sub Registrar from entertaining complaints or representations that may come to be submitted by parties seeking to resile from the bargain comprised in the instrument. The procedure prescribed under the Act contemplates the Sub Registrar accepting the instrument for the purposes of registration only after calling upon parties to declare whether they have in fact executed the instrument, verifying the identity of parties and ensuring that the instrument is compliant with all other requirements as mandated by law. As was elucidated by the Supreme Court in Satyapal Anand, it is this limited jurisdiction and role which stands assigned to the Sub Registrar. The Court also bears in mind the remedies enshrined in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 which confers an adequate right of recourse to the fifth respondent. All rights of that respondent, if such a course were adopted shall, though needless to say, in any case be open to be pursued."
Mr. Satyakam, learned ASC concedes to the said legal position and submits that the document which has been presented for registration shall be duly scrutinised and any decision that the Sub-Registrar may take ultimately to refuse registration in terms of the provisions made in the Act shall be duly communicated to the petitioner. The statement so made is recorded and accepted.
The petitioner shall consequently stand disposed of with a direction to the concerned Sub-Registrar to duly scrutinise the instrument which has been presented and pass appropriate orders in respect thereof with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:30.03.2022 14:02:28 expedition and preferably within a period of two months. All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
MARCH 25, 2022/neha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:30.03.2022 14:02:28