Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Deverneni Linga Rao vs Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, ... on 19 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD144, 1999(6)ALT599
ORDER
1. The issue involved in both these writ petitions is similar and the facts are also identical. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. These two writ petitions are filed seeking for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, respondent herein, in refusing to register the sale deed proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their respective purchasers in respect of certain lands (mentioned in the prater portion) as illegal.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they sold those lands in the year 1982 and possession was given to the purchasers then itself. The purchasers are now continuing in possession of the said lands. Recently the purchasers requested them to execute registered sale deeds in their favour and the petitioners herein agreed for the same. Accordingly, they approached the respondent to effect registration of the sale deeds proposed to be executed by them. But, the respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the said lands were proposed for acquisition by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited.
4. Sri I. Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the refusal of the respondent to register the sale deeds on the ground that the lands were proposed for acquisition by the Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., is illegal and arbitrary, and, therefore, the respondent should be commanded by issuing a writ of mandamus to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers.
5. Strongly disputing the aforesaid contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that; the petitioners neither approached the respondent nor presented any document for registration and, as such, the question of refusal by the respondent does not arise; and that, therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondent' to register the so called proposed sale deeds.
6. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is well founded. The petitioners did not produce any documentary proof in support of their averment that they have presented the sale deeds to the respondent for registration, but he has refused to register the same. They could not even mention the date on which they had approached the respondent. Therefore, it is difficult to accept their statement, more so when that statement is specifically denied by the respondent in his counter. At this juncture it is appropriate to note that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") the Sub-Registrar is bound to record reasons for his refusal. The said section is as under :
"Sec. 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 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 Registratering Officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered."
A perusal of the above provision clearly shows that the Sub-Registrar, whenever registration is refused except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, has to pass an order and record reasons for such order in Book No.2. If the person presenting the document applies, he should also furnish a copy of the reasons so recorded by him without payment and unnecessary delay.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners herein did not make any application asking for a copy of the reasons for refusal. In these circumstances, it is difficult to infer that the respondent has refused to register the sale 1 deeds. But the learned Counsel for the petitioners-Sri I. Aga Reddy - forcefully urged, relying upon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in S. Nagi Reddy v. Joint Sub-Registrar, Registration and Stamps, Tirupati, , that the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court is sufficient to infer refusal by the respondent. In his submission, the petitioners would not have approached this Court straightaway without first approaching the respondent. I am not able to accept this contention in the absence of any documentary proof that the petitioners had approached the respondent and presented the documents for registration. Mere fact that the petitioners have approached this Court is not sufficient to infer refusal by the respondent. Further, their conduct in not making even an application, as contemplated under Section 71 of the Act, excludes any such inference. The decision in S. Nagi Reddy's case (supra) will not lend any support to the petitioners. No principle is laid down by the learned single Judge in that decision. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Judge inferred refusal and issued certain directions. The facts of this case are different. The petitioners herein could not even state the date on which they have approached the respondent. Further, Section 71 of the Act was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge.
8. The well established Rule, subject to certain exceptions, is that the applicant for mandamus must show by evidence, that he made a demand calling upon the concerned authority to perform his public duty and that was met with refusal either bywords or by conduct Applying this salutary rule, the Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd Etc., v.- Union of India, thus :
"..... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 arc not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol.13, P. 106):
'As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal".
From the aforementioned facts and circumstances it is clear that the petitioners could not and did not show that they made a demand to the respondent and that was met with refusal. Therefore, it is not possible to issue the declaration sought for or the consequential direction commanding the respondent herein to register the sale deeds proposed to be executed by the petitioners in favour of their purchasers. This view of mine gains full support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in D. Ratnasundari Devi v. Commissioner of Urban Land Ceiling, .
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from presenting the sale deeds for registration before the respondent. In such an event, I am sure, the respondent will immediately discharge his statutory duties mentioned in Part XI of the Act and consider registerability of the sale deeds. I am also sure that in case the registration is refused, he will certainly record the reasons as enjoined by Section 71 of the Act and furnish a copy thereof, if the petitioners apply for the same.