Chitranshi Goyal Daughter Of Shri ... vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1657 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19964/2019

   Chitranshi Goyal Daughter Of Shri Sunil Kumar Goyal, Aged
   About 22 Years, Resident Of Near Rajmandir Dag, Jhalawar,
   Rajasthan
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
   1.     Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through Head Of Divisional
          Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. W-83, Shastri Nagar,
          Lohagal Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305006
   2.     The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9
          All    Yavar      Jung       Marg,        Bandra           (East),   Mumbai-
          400051(Maharashthra)
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv.

Mr. Roshan Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Devansh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv. through V.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order

REPORTABLE Reserved On 11/02/2022 Pronounced On 22 /02/2022

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged

action of the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short,

'IOCL') in conducting selection for retail outlet dealership and

allotment of petrol pump at location within Khasra No.76,

Nahargatti 31/1, Dug, District Jhalawar on account of violation of

her fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14,19 and 21 of

the Constitution of India making following prayers:-

"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof thereby to quash and set side the letter/mail dated 13 march 2019 in declining the

(2 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

candidature of the petitioner in Group 1 category (land) is illegal and bad in the eye of law.

ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions thereby declaring the petitioner is entitled for and to be considered in Group 1 category (land) in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure-1. iii. Issue such other writ, order or directions as may be deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in facts & circumstances of case and in favour of humble petitioner.

iv. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, award cost of writ petition in favour of humble petitioner.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court considers fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted."

2. The facts of the case are that on 14/12/2018, an

advertisement was issued by the respondent-IOCL in daily

newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika' for selection of dealers qua IOCL

retail outlet at various locations. The respondent-IOCL also issued

a brochure dated 24/11/2018 for selection of dealers for regular

and rural retail outlets wherein the terms, conditions and

guidelines were also incorporated. As per the advertisement, the

last date for submitting application form was 12/01/2019 and the

same could have been submitted through on-line mode which was

to be withdrawn immediately after lapse of last date i.e.

12/01/2019

3. On 11/01/2019, sale deed of the land qua the allotment was

presented in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dug, District Jhalawar for

registration and after receiving the same, necessary e-challan and

appropriate stamps duty was deposited, affidavits, prescribed

forms were also deposited and the consideration was paid and

possession was given by the seller to the petitioner on 11/01/2019

but the sale deed could not be registered on 11/01/2019 due to

the server being down and due to there being public holidays on

(3 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

12th,13th and 14th January, 2019 ultimately, the sale deed could

be registered on 15th January, 2019. As regards the application

form, the petitioner had submitted the same on 12/01/2019 within

time.

4. It is relevant to note that it has come on record that a

certificate was also issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dug

certifying that the sale deed was presented for registration on

11/01/2019 but as the server was down on that day and

thereafter 12th, 13th and 14th January, 2019 were public

holidays, the matter could not be processed and the sale deed

could be registered on 15/01/2019

5. On 14/01/2019, the respondent-IOCL vide e-mail declared

the petitioner as a successful candidate.

6. It is also relevant to note that no documents were required

to be submitted alongwith the application form.

7. The requirement made by the respondent-IOCL vide its letter

dated 14/01/2019 for submission of documents including the land

documents within a period of 10 days, was duly fulfilled and the

entire documents as required were submitted in the office of the

respondents on 21/01/2019.

8. Vide communication dated 13/03/2019 (Annexure-5), the

respondent-IOCL declared application form of the petitioner as not

proper under Group-1 and found candidature of the petitioner

under the said category as ineligible but directed for consideration

of the application of the petitioner under Group-3 as per

guidelines.

9. The only reason for rejection of the candidature of the

petitioner for Group-1 to the best knowledge of the petitioner was

non-registration of the land documents on or before 12/01/2019.

(4 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

10. The petitioner got a certificate from the office of Sub-

Registrar, Dug on 19/03/2019 which specifies the factum of sale

deed being presented for registration on 11/01/2019 and the

reasoning for non-execution of the same on the said date on

account of the server being down and thereafter there being

public holidays and the same being registered on 15/01/2019.

11. On 20/03/2019, the petitioner submitted a representation to

the respondents apprising the above facts and also that she

became owner of the land on 11/01/2019 for allotment of outlet

dealership under Group-1 category and had submitted the said

fact in her application form as well as also filed documents with

the respondents within required time of 10 days of the letter dated

14/01/2019 and therefore categorization of her entitlement under

Group-3 is erroneous, illegal and unjustified.

12. Further, representations were also submitted by the

petitioner but no heed was paid and no response qua the same

was given. The petitioner, therefore, filed present writ petition on

11/11/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon

Sections 23 and 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which read as under:-

The Registration Act, 1908:

"23. Time for presenting documents.--Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution:

Provided that a copy a of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final.

(5 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

47. Time from which registered document operates.--A registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 "54. "Sale" defined.--"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.

Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.--A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."

14. While placing reliance upon the said Sections of the

Registration Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the registered document shall operate from the time when the

same is commenced to operate or has been executed and not

from the date of registration/issuance by the authority concerned.

As per Section 23 of the Registration Act, a document of the

nature of sale deed specifies time of four months from the date of

its execution. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 74

of the Registration Act, 1908 permits enquiry to be performed by

the competent authority under the Act. Learned counsel has also

submitted that Section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882

(6 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

defines sale as a transfer of ownership when consideration is paid

qua the same.

15. In the light of above provisions, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon judgment of the Apex Court rendered in

Hamda Ammal Vs. Avadiappa Pathar & 3 Ors.: (1991) 1 SCC

715.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance

upon Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court passed in

Letter Patent Appeal No.963/2015, decided on 23/11/2015, titled

as Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala in the

case of LPG distributorship in the similar kind of facts wherein

after considering the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration

Act, 1908, vide Para 8 and 9, it was held that the date of effect of

sale deed will be its presentation and not issuance of registration

in terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the

guidelines of the Oil Companies cannot override the Act of the

Parliament. The said decision of the Division Bench was affirmed

by the Apex Court in SLP No.5299/2016 by the Supreme Court

vide order dated 01/04/2016 dismissing the SLP of the IOCL and

therefore, the guidelines of the Oil Companies cannot override the

law of parliament as well as the settled position of law.

17. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-IOCL very

vehemently submitted that Section 47 of the Registration Act,

1908 specifies that in cases where the registration is required

compulsorily, the date of execution/presentation cannot be

considered; the terms and conditions of the guidelines of the Oil

Companies are binding upon them as well as the applicant and the

same were specified in the document which has been duly

accepted by the petitioner in Para No.4(v)(a). Learned counsel for

(7 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

respondent-IOCL further submitted that it is an admitted case of

the petitioner that his application was filed on 12/10/2019 and the

documents were filed on 21/01/2019 after getting the document

registered on 15/01/2019 and therefore, once the registration of

the document was done on 15/01/2019, the case of the petitioner

cannot be considered under Group-1 category as on 12/01/2019,

the document in question qua the title of land was unregistered

sale deed which is more than enough to debar the petitioner to

from considering his case under Group-1 category. Further, the

submissions of the documents was falsely made and is an act of

misrepresentation, concealment and suppression and on this

count alone, the candidature of the petitioner is falsified. Learned

counsel for the respondent-IOCL further submitted that the

judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable in the

facts of the present case as the sale deed was required to be

compulsorily registered prior to filing of the application form in

terms of Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

18. On screening records of the writ petition, hearing the

respective counsels and considering the judgments relied upon at

bar, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly prior to

last date of submission of application form, the sale deed was

presented before the office of Sub-Registrar, Dug. The sale

consideration and required stamp duty had been paid and the

entry of the same had also been made in the records of the office

of Sub-Registrar, Dug. The certificate dated 19/03/2019 issued by

the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dug categorically discloses that the

server was down on 11/01/2019 and there were public holidays on

12/01/2019, 13/01/2019 and 14/01/2019 and, therefore, the

(8 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

process of final registration and issuance of the registered

documents was carried out on 15/01/2019.

19. It is also an admitted case of the respondents that vide letter

dated 14/01/2019 (Annexure-4) they have selected the petitioner

on the basis of the application form provisionally and permitted

the petitioner to submit documents within a time span of ten days

which has been complied with by the petitioner. The only ground

for categorizing the application of the petitioner at later point of

time under Group-3 category was that on the date of depositing

the application form, the land document was not registered. In

this regard, the Apex Court in Hamda Ammal (supra) has

categorically held in Paras 4 and 5 which are reproduced as

under:-

"4. Section 54 of the Act defines Sale as "a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised." Thus after the execution of the sale deed with consideration all the ingredients of sale are fulfilled except that in case of tangible immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards it can be made only by registered instrument. Now, if we read Section 47 of the Registration Act, it clearly provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. This provision makes it clear that after the registration it will relate back to the date of execution of the sale deed. The act of registration is to be performed by the registering authority. According to sec. 23 of the Registration Act a document of the nature of sale deed shall be accepted for registration within four months from the date of its execution. Thus a statutory period of four months has been provided for presenting the sale deed for registration from the date of its execution. In case of dispute regarding the execution of the document an enquiry is permitted under Section 74(a) of the Registration Act and that may also take sometime. The Legislature being alive of such

(9 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

situations has already provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act that it shall operate from the time from which it would commence to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. Thus in our view the vendee gets rights which will be related back on registration from the date of the execution of the sale deed and such rights are protected under Order 38 Rule 10 C.P.C. read together with Section 47 of the Registration Act.

5. We cannot accept the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that till registration, the execution of the sale deed does not confer any rights whatsoever on the vendee. Even Section 49 of the Registration Act in its proviso inserted by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, negatives the above contention of the learned counsel. The above provision lays down that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as an evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered instrument. Thus even an unregistered document can be received as evidence for purposes mentioned in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act."

20. As per Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, four months'

time is provided for acceptance of registration qua the sale deed

and as per Section 74 enquiry can be conducted. As per Section

47, it is specifically provided that a registration shall operate from

the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no

registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the

time of its registration.

21. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

respondents are negated in view of the judgment of the Apex

Court (supra) in as much as within time frame of four months, a

(10 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

sale deed can be presented for registration. As per Section 23,

after submitting the sale deed for registration with the registration

office, the same can be considered for enquiry and as per Section

47, the act of registration is not bound to operate but it is a time

from which it would have commenced to operate.

22. In the case in hand, it is an admitted position that on

11/01/2019, the sale deed commenced to operate, the petitioner's

father has taken possession of the said land, paid consideration

qua the same to the seller, deposited adequate stamp duty

alongwith prescribed form in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dug and

as the server of the office of Sub-Registrar, Dug was down on the

date of presentation of sale deed for registration on 11/01/2019

and thereafter there were public holidays for three days, the sale

deed was registered on 15/01/2019 and the same was submitted

within the prescribed time of ten days as provided by the

respondents.

23. Even otherwise, as per Sections 9 and 10 of the General

Clauses Act, computation of time and manner of computation

excludes the date of filing when there are public holidays.

24. The same situation was also considered by the Gujarat High

Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala

(supra) in the case of the respondents only and vide Paras No.11

and 12, after considering the Apex Court judgment and Section 47

of the Registration Act, 1908, in the similar situation, the

contention of the Oil Company (respondents) was turned down

and the said view of the Gujarat High Court was affirmed by the

Apex Court.

25. In the light of above, the prayers made by the petitioner in

the present writ petition appear to be justified and the impugned

(11 of 11) [CW-19964/2019]

action of the respondents communicated by them to the petitioner

vide their letter/email dt.13/03/2019 in not considering the case

of the petitioner for retail outlet under Group-1 is held to be

unjustified. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider

the claim of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet under the

category of Group-1 and proceed further.

26. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. All pending

application stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Raghu

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)