Yuvraj Singh Dikhit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4028 MP

                                   1                              WP-27943-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-27943-2019
    (YUVRAJ SINGH DIKHIT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

3
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-08-2021
      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri A.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
      2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition calling in question order dated
09.06.2015 by which Deputy Registrar, Registration Circle-02, Zone-1,

Jabalpur has refused to register document of sale of petitioners namely Yuvraj
Singh Dikhit and Shivendra Singh.
      3. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that
registration authority is only doing administrative work and does not have any
quasi-judicial power.
      4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on judgment passed by
Apex Court in case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767. He relied on paragraph-41 of said judgment,
which is quoted as under:-

          "41. Section 35 of the Act does not confer a quasi-
          judicial pow er o n the Registering Authority. The
          Registering Officer is expected to reassure that the
          document to be registered is accompanied by
          supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate
          the title or irregularity in the document as such. The
          examination to be done by him is incidental, to
          ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the
          1908 Act. In the case of Park View Enterprises it has
          been observed that t h e function o f the Registering
          Officer is purely administrative a n d n o t quasi-
          judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document
          presented f o r registration is executed by person
          having title, as mentioned in the instrument. We agree
          with that exposition."
      5. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on order reported in
2008 (II) MPWN 15 [Surendra Vs. State of M.P.]. In said case, it has been
                                         2                              WP-27943-2019
held that Sub Registrar has no authority to examine question of title to the
land in question and he cannot refuse registration of documents on this
ground. Learned Single Judge in said case, relied on order passed in case of
Ramprasad Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 (II) MPWN 74. In
said case also it was held that at time of registration of documents, Registrar

is only required to see that the person shown in sale deed is executing the
document or not and he is not required to investigate the title of the seller. On
strength of said judgment, counsel for petitioner submitted that order dated
09.06.2015 is illegal and same may be set aside.
            6. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submitted
that Deputy Registrar, Jabalpur has passed legal and appropriate order as per
provision of Rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh amended Registration Rules. As per
said amended rules, applicants were required to file certified copy of Khasra
Panchshala along with documents to be registered. Khasra Panchshala
produced with the documents were forged and on information of Revenue
Officer, and considering amended rules, Deputy Registrar refused registration
and there is no illegality in the order.
            7. Heard the counsel for petitioner as well as respondents/State.

8. On going through the impugned order, it is found that Deputy Registrar, Registration Circle-02, Zone-1, Jabalpur has relied on amended rules and the Registration Act, 1908. As there was no compliance of the provision, therefore, he refused to register the document. Deputy Registrar did not act as quasi-judicial authority in refusal to register the sale deed. Formalities regarding registration were not complete and Khasra Panchshala was forged as per letter of Revenue Officer, therefore, he refused to register the document. Case cited by counsel for petitioner has no application in present case. Deputy Registrar has acted as per amended rules and had not gone into the question of title.

9. In view of same, writ petition field by petitioner is dismissed.

                                                              (VISHAL DHAGAT)


  Digitally signed by SHABANA
  ANSARI
  Date: 2021.08.13 14:12:49 +05'30'
           3     WP-27943-2019
              JUDGE
shabana