Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amrat Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3107
1 WP-2280-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2280 of 2025
AMRAT LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M S Jadon - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against non-registration of a sale-deed presented by the petitioner by
which he had purchased a land bearing survey no.51/5 admeasuring area
3.658 hectare out of total admeasuring area 17.850 hectare from respondent
no.4.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the sale-deed
was presented for its registration before the sub-registrar earlier on account
of some stay on the land in question the document was not registered and
endorsement "Apanjikrat" has been made on the said sale-deed, but now the
stay order granted in Civil Suit No.215A/2011 has culminated into a final
order, whereby on the basis of compromise the suit has been disposed of
vide order dated 22.04.2019 and a decree in accordance thereof has been
framed and since no impediment now exists for registration of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3107
2 WP-2280-2025
document directions be issued to the sub-registrar to register the said sale-
deed.
3. On the contrary, Shri M.S. Jadon, learned Government Advocate on
advance copy submits that the judgment which has been referred to by the
counsel for petitioner is between two persons who are foreign to the
transaction executed between petitioner and respondent no.4 and are not
party to the sale-deed and by way of compromise in the suit entire survey
no.51/5 admeasuring 17.850 hectares has been agreed to be divided between
them in two equal parts, thus, when present respondent no.4 who is alleged
to be the seller is not a party to the suit and had not acquired any rights
through any of the persons who were party therein, the registration of the
said sale-deed cannot be directed to be effected.
4. It was further argued that against the refusal to register a document
remedy lay to the petitioner under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908
and since the said remedy has not been availed, the present petition in wake
of availability of alternative remedy is not maintainable.
5. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. As per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, the sub-Registrar
refusing to register a document has to make an order of refusal and record
his reasons for such an order in his book no.2 and endorse the words
"Registration Refused" on the document.
7. It appears to this Court that it is only in wake of the powers
exercised under Section 71 of the Registration Act, that an endorsement "
Apanjikrat" has been made by the sub-Registrar and prior to the said
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3107
3 WP-2280-2025
endorsement, the sub-Registrar must have passed an order which is not
before this Court.
8. Admittedly, as per Section 72 of the Registration Act an appeal lay
against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing registration, thus, a legal
remedy was/is available to the petitioner to challenge the refusal of
registration by the Sub-Registrar.
9. Even otherwise, from the order which has been cited by the counsel
for the petitioner contending that since there is no stay operating over the
land in question, the Sub-Registrar is required to register the said sale-deed,
it is seen that the suit in which the order has been passed, the parties were
one Surendra Singh and Ramveer Singh. Both the plaintiff and defendant are
not party to the transaction entered into between petitioner and respondent
no.4 nor there is any averment that respondent no.4 has derived any right
from any of the two who had divided the property in equal half between
themselves.
10. Thus, this Court without going into the merits of the matter grants
liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of refusal to register the sale-deed
before appropriate forum.
11. It is also made clear that in case the order of refusal of sub-
Registrar is challenged in higher forum any observation made herein
touching the merits of the order shall not come in a way before the authority
before whom the order would be challenged.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed
of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:3107
4 WP-2280-2025
CC as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
