Delhi District Court
Smt. Gayatri Devi vs Sub Registrar-Iv on 13 January, 2015
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CS No. 434/14
Unique ID No. 02402C0378552014
Smt. Gayatri Devi
W/o Sh. Jitender Pal Singh
R/o J-134, Main Road,
Kartar Nagar, Delhi-110053
.....Plaintiff
versus
Sub Registrar-IV
DC Office Complex,
Nand Nagari, Delhi-110093
.....Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 01.12.2014
Judgment reserved on : 03.01.2015
Judgment announced on : 13.01.2015
Final Order : Suit decreed
Suit under Section 77 of the
Registration Act, 1908
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts: The present suit has been filed under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking a direction to the defendant (Sub-Registrar) to register a sale deed which has been refused on its presentation. It is the case of the plaintiff that she presented sale deed in question to the defendant in the CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 1 of 10 prescribed manner for registration and it was also duly executed by the person entitled to do so after completing the formalities such as taking photographs, signatures, thumb impression, etc. The plaintiff was also given an admittance receipt no. 3226 dated 27.08.2013 but thereafter the defendant refused to register said sale deed vide its order dated 21.10.2013 on the ground that the said property has been booked by the MCD for unauthorised construction vide serial no. 318 dated 16.11.2013. Thereupon the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order before the Registrar who also rejected the said appeal vide order dated 07.10.2014 on the ground that he cannot supersede the orders of his seniors. Thus it is alleged that the defendant did not discharge his official duties in pursuance to statutory provisions of the Registration Act.
2. After receiving summons of the suit, the defendant filed his written statement stating therein that he refused registration of the sale deed in question after following the order of the Inspector General of registration dated 26.04.2011 which stipulates that the transactions of the properties declared and booked as unauthorised construction w.e.f. 26.04.2011 shall not be registered till the building is regularised. No other dispute has been raised by the defendant. The defendant has also placed on record copy of the said order dated 26.04.2011, which reads as under:
CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 2 of 10 "Order The Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi is pleased to order that the order No. F. 27/SDM/KJ/2010/97 dated 30.03.2011 banning the registration of transactions in respect of all structures that are unsupported with sanctioned building plans vis-a-vis the requirement of furnishing of a certificate of structural safety issued by the competent authority, be kept in abeyance till further orders.
The government of NCT of Delhi has, further, decided that the transactions in respect of properties declared and booked as "unauthorized construction" with effect from April 26th, 2011 shall not be registered till the building is regularized. In order to ensure and implement this, with effect from April 26, 2011 buildings declared and booked as "unauthorized construction" by MCD, shall be put on the website of MCD, DDA, NDMC and Delhi Cantonment Board on daily basis with foolproof arrangements of informing the concerned the sub-registrars.
This order shall come into force from the date of issue.
sd/-
Secretary (Rev.)-cum-Inspector General of Registration Revenue Department Government of NCT of Delhi"
3. In this case, only a legal issue arose with respect to validity of order of the defendant refusing registration of the sale deed and, as such, no evidence was invited from the parties CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 3 of 10 since the documents placed on record by the parties were not disputed. Accordingly, arguments were heard on the said legal issue from Sh. Kishore Bhandari, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sh. Vijay Kinger, learned counsel for the defendant.
Reasons for decision
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that this court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the orders passed by the defendant and his superior officers. He specifically stated that this power is vested only with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and if the plaintiff has any grievances, she should have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that specific statutory provision has been made in Section 77 of the Registration Act to invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the concerned Registrar or Sub-registrar refuses to register a document as per the provisions of said Act.
5. For having a glance over the relevant statutory provisions of the Registration Act, they are reproduced as under:
S.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 CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 4 of 10 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.
72. Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub-
Registrar refusing registration on ground other than denial of execution.-(1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order.
(2) If the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration.
77. Suit in case of order of refusal by Registrar.- (1) Where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered under section 72 or a CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 5 of 10 decree section 76, any person claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or agent, may, within thirty days after the making of the order of refusal, institute in the Civil Court, within the local limits of whose original jurisdiction is situate the office in which the document is sought to be registered, a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree.
(2) The provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 75 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to all documents presented for registration in accordance with any such decree, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the documents shall be receivable in evidence in such suit.
6. From the perusal of aforesaid provisions of Registration Act, it is clear that a remedy has been provided to the aggrieved person whose document has been refused to be registered to approach civil court under Section 77 of the said Act. Even in the case of GURJEET SINGH MADAAN Vs. THE SUB-REGISTRAR-IX (DISTRICT SOUTH-WEST) [CS(OS) 340/2013 decided on 26.09.2013], it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that -
"Section 77 of the Registration Act provides that where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be registered then any person claiming the said document may within 30 days institute in a Civil Court a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office."
CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 6 of 10
7. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I hold the present case is within the jurisdiction and competence of this court and the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant on the point of lack of jurisdiction is meritless. I also rely on the judgment filed by the counsel for the plaintiff in this regard titled as Jeewan Ram V. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1954 Raj 53], wherein it was held that filing of writ petition is not advisable when a remedy has been provided to approach civil court.
8. Now the crucial point which requires determination of this court is - whether the defendant exercised his powers for refusal of registration as per the statutory provisions of the Registration Act or not. On reading the entire provisions of the Registration Act, it is clear that specific grounds have been provided in it which empowers the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of a document. In this regard reliance can be placed on the case of Hari Singh and Anr v. Sub Registrar and Ors (1998) 120 PLR 787 decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it was held that -
"9. The Registration Act itself is a complete code. All reasons have been specifically enumerated under Sections 21, 23, 28, 32 and 35 of the Act for which a Sub Registrar or the Registrar may refuse to register the sale deed and other documents required to be registered under the Act. The Act nowhere provides that the Sub Registrar/Registrar can refuse to register the lease deed/sale deed pertaining to a property the CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 7 of 10 ownership of which is in question. It does not fall within the domain of the Registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject matter of the deed of conveyance. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not thought it proper to make such a provision in the Act authorising the Registrar/Sub Registrar to make a probe into the ownership of the property sought to be transferred in any manner."
9. In the instant case, the reasons given by the defendant for refusal of registration are not within the statutory provisions of the said Act which empowers the defendant to refuse registration. In the opinion of this court, no doubt there is a stigma on the property sought to be registered on account of violation of certain provisions of the Municipal Act (DMC Act) for raising unauthorised construction but said violations cannot be made a ground for refusal of registration of a document since the said ground is not part of statutory scheme of the Registration Act. The said ground may appear to be justified on account of large scale illegal construction activities but by that very fact the Registrar cannot assume powers to refuse registration unless the same is made part of Registration Act.
10. Further, it is apparent that the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar are the outcome of the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration vide his order dated 26.04.2011. Although the plaintiff has not prayed any relief for declaring the said order dated 26.04.2011 as null and CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 8 of 10 void but by virtue of powers under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, this court can give any such relief which is just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. At the time of passing order, the Registrar/DM gave his twofold reasoning viz. (I) in a case W.P. (C) No. 7057 titled as Court on its own motion vs. DDA, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi gave direction for not registration of documents pertaining to the property owned by DDA on behalf of unauthorized persons and (II) that under Section 69 of the Registration Act, the Inspector General of Registration has the power to make rules consistence with the provisions of the said Act. As regards the judgment of the Hon. High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7057, it is seen that the said directions were given with respect to the vacant land belonging to DDA and said analogy cannot be applied or equated to the violation of the Municipal Law especially raising of unauthorized construction. As regards the second reasoning with regard to power under Section 69 of the said Act, it is seen that said power is with respect to formulation of rules and regulations especially with regard to formation of documents,usage of language, jurisdiction and other administrative matters and the said delegated power cannot be used by the Inspector General of Registration to increase or decrease the grounds of refusal of registration without making necessary amendment in the said Act by way of parliamentary process. Thus, I hold that the order of the Inspector General of Registration dated 26.4.2011 is ultra vires CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 9 of 10 to the statutory scheme/provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the order passed by defendant dated 21.10.2013 and the order passed by the Registrar on 07.10.2014 are set aside. Consequently the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendant is directed to register the document i.e., sale deed executed by Sh. Yogesh Gambhir, S/o Padam Chand, R/o 6-B/8, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi as Vendor in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Gayatri Devi, W/o Sh. Jitender Pal Singh, R/o J-134, Main Road, Kartar Nagar, Delhi 110053, as Vendee, in respect of first floor without roof rights of part of property no. C-6/241, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi after its presentation within 30 days. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 13.01.2015 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Senior Civil Judge cum-Rent Controller Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts/13.01.2015 CS No. : 434/14 Gayatri Devi Vs. SubRegistrar IV Page No. 10 of 10