Whether registrar can refuse to register sale deed without assigning reasons?

The impugned endorsement on the sale deed
presented by the petitioner does not reflect the specific reasons after due
application of mind before its return. The District Sub-Registrar
-respondent no. 4 is, therefore, required to record specific reasons for its
rejection, if any, after due application of mind in accordance with law
taking into account the circulars and the guidelines issued by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand as
well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajrajeshwar
Prasad Singh Chandel in W.P.(C) No. 6184/2014 reported in 2015 (3)
JCR 598 (Jhr.). Accordingly the impugned order is quashed for the

aforesaid reasons. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
 W.P. (C) No. 1630 of 2015

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal 
V
State of Jharkhand.

Dated: 03.01.2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 Jharkhand 21

Print Page

Whether Registering officer can undertake inquiry into legality and validity of document to be registered?

We have exhaustively produced relevant provisions
of Act, 1908 which confer adequate powers upon
registering officer and higher ups including to obtain
photographs and finger prints and the signature for
obtaining registration under Section 32 (a) of the Act and
duties of registering officer when such document is
presented under Section 52 of the Act. Section 34
envisaged nature of limited inquiry but not about legality
and validity of the title to be undertaken before
registration of the document by registering officer and in
case when identity of the person presenting the document
is doubtful registration is to be refused, which is again
subject matter of appeal before higher officer. The
contention based on Sections 68 and 69 of the Act, 1908
by learned Additional Advocate General about powers of
Registrar to Superintend and control Sub Registrars and
Power of Inspector-General to Superintend registration
offices and make rules, however would not confer any
power upon the State Government to issue such executive
instructions which are contrary to Act, 1908 and
provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and
further Section 69(2) envisaged that rules made under
Section 69 shall have to be submitted to the State
Government for approval and after they have been
approved and published in the official gazette the same
shall have effect as if enacted under the Act. Admittedly,

no such rules are framed. In a case of Pandurangan v.
Sub-Registrar, Reddiar-Palayam Pondicherry & Ors. where
Rule 54 was framed in exercise of power conferred under
Section 69 of the Act, 1908 was held to be illegal by
holding that statutory rules cannot override express
provisions of the statute. Further, the powers conferred
under Section 69 are only of General Superintendence and
for purpose mentioned therein and not to make any inroad
or obviate provisions of the Act. That Chapter XIV
pertaining to ‘of penalties’ of the Act 1908 provides
action to be taken against registering officer in case if
such officer knows or believes that endorsement, copying,
translation or registration of such document is incorrect
such action shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 7 years or with fine or with
both. Likewise, Section 82 is about penalty for making
false statements, delivering false copies or translations,
false personation and abetment and in this case also
punishment is the same. Further registering officer is
empowered to commence prosecution with permission of
superior officer whenever such offence is committed.
Thus, sufficient care is taken for any mischief either to be
made by presenter or even officer of registration
department. The apprehension of learned Additional
Advocate General about suspicion and doubtful power of
attorney and holder of such power of attorney therefore is
misconceived.

18.1.The contention raised by Mr. P.K.Jani, learned
Additional Advocate General about breach of provisions of
other statute, prima facie to be looked into by the
registering authority has no merit. It is trite that for
breach of provisions of any other Act, competent authority
under such Act has all the powers to take action in
accordance with law for the breach alleged. For example,
if the stamp duty is not paid in accordance with the
requirement under Stamp Act, competent authority under
the above Act has all the powers to take action in
accordance with law but for such ground registering
officer is not empowered to refuse the registration of the
document if otherwise found proper in accordance with
provisions of the Act, 1908. That Rule 45 of the rules
1970 framed by the State of Gujarat in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 69 of the Act 1908 also envisaged
preliminary and limited inquiry by Registering Officer
before accepting the document and the same is in
consonance with Section 34 of the Act but under above
rule also provision of the main Act 1908 also cannot be
subdued or can be given go by or whittled down and the
contentions based on Rule 45 also have no merit.
19. That contention raised by learned Additional
Advocate General on the strength of decisions cited to
which reference is made in para 4 of this judgment has no
applicability inasmuch as in the case of Rai Sahib Ram
Jawaya Kapur & Ors. v. The State of Punjab (supra), it only

explain scope of executive power in the context of Article
162 of the Constitution of India and in case of Ajit
Investment Co.Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar Gujarat and Anr. V. K.G.
Malvadkar and Ors. (supra) though deal with Sections 34
and 35 of the Act 1908 and Rule 44 of Maharashtra Rules,
1961 it is only about empowerment of a registering officer
to verify certain requirements pertaining to registration of
documents which are prescribed in the said rules but may
not be concerned about validity of such document. Such
registering authority can satisfy himself as to the identity
of the persons appearing before him. Thus, above
decision also do not approve inquiry to be made in the
legality and validity of the title of the document if it
satisfies other requirement of the Act 1908. in the case of
Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. Thru Div. State of
Haryana and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court was concerned
with transactions undertaken by taking recourse to power
of attorney and not following the procedure and
requirement of registration of sale deed of transfer of
immovable property and, therefore, deprecated transfer of
immovable property either by sale agreement or general
power of attorney or wil.
19.1.Therefore, none of the above authorities permit
registering officer to undertake inquiry into legality and
validity of the title and document empowering registering
officer to act like judicial officer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 22 of 2013
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14413 of 2011

STATE OF GUJARAT 
V
RAJIV MAHESHKUMAR MEHTA & 3
CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
 MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 09/08/2016

Print Page

Whether registering authority under Registration Act, 1908 is bound by assessment of stamp duty made by court as per suit valuation Act

Market value for the purpose of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not the same as suit valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. The procedures are different for assessment of the stamp duty and for registration of an instrument. The reference to the expression 'on the basis of any court decision after hearing the State Government' appearing in Rule 3 of The West Bengal Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 2001, would clearly show that the suit valuation cannot be automatically followed for the purpose of registration. The learned Civil Judge has, thus, clearly erred in directing the registration to be done on the basis of suit valuation. The Sheristadar made a mechanical assessment of stamp duty on 1/4th share of the suit property as per the compromise and fixed the stamp duty accordingly for Rs.12,50,000/-. That does not meet the requirement under law.

15. The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 and The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 operate in different fields. However, going by the scheme of the Act and Rules as amended by West Bengal, we are of the view that it will only be appropriate that in such situations where the registering authority has any difference of opinion as to assessment on the stamp duty of the instrument presented for registration on the orders of the court, it will only be appropriate that Registrar makes a back reference to the court concerned and the court undertakes a fresh exercise after affording an opportunity of hearing to the registering authority with regard to the proper value of the instrument for registration. The registering authority cannot be compelled to follow invariably the value fixed by the court for the purpose of suit valuation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Additional District Sub-Registrar Siliguri Vs. Pawan Kumar Verma and Others

[Civil Appeal No. 4167/2013 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22263/2011]

KURIAN, J.:

Dated;1 May 2013

citation;2013 (3) ALL M R 987 (SC)

Print Page