Vasantbhai Somabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

1. This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking of prayer to direct the respondent No.4- the Sub-Registrar of Taluka-Kamrej, District-Surat, to forthwith register the sale deed No.7910 of 2016 executed on 30-03-2016 by the petitioners in respect of the land situated at Block No.112 of Survey No.109 of Village-Orna, Taluka-Kamrej, District-Surat. The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the communication dated 19-09-2016 at Annexure-E.

2. The basic contention of the petitioners is that respondent- the Sub-Registrar has no authority to withhold the document and or decide upon the title qua the land which is subject matter of the document. It is submitted that tenure of the communication dated 19-09-2016 as Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 20:57:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/19723/2016 ORDER indicative of the fact that the Sub-Registrar has power of the civil code to embark upon the decision about the validity of the document or genuineness of the transaction on the basis of petition by third party claiming the previous registered document in connection with the very subject land.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners has raised several grounds in support of his contention and prayed to release the registered document. However, thereafter, he restricted his petition only to the entitlement of the petitioners for reasoned order as contemplated under Section-71 of the Registration Act.

4. Learned AGP has opposed the petition mainly contending Section-50 of the Registration Act as well as Section-34 for emphasizes the scope and ambit of an inquiry upon the Sub-Registrar.

5. Learned Advocate for the private respondents has opposed the petition on the ground of alternative remedy and has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of DILIP ATMARAM KAMLI v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT dated 26/11/2015, in Para-13, has held as under:

"(13) In the present case also the only directions which can be given to respondent No.2 is to pass an appropriate order under Section 71 of the Act in relation to the aforesaid sale deeds in question, as provided under Section 71 of the Act, in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 shall pass order in Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 20:57:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/19723/2016 ORDER accordance with law, after taking into consideration provisions of the Act as well as the guidelines, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and shall pass a reasoned order whether the authority intends to refuse the registration, failing which respondent No.2 authority shall pass appropriate orders registering the documents in question considering the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Prashant Jayantilal Patel (supra) and keeping in mind the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. Therefore no further directions are necessary to be provided by this Court and the petitioner is not entitled for any prayers prayed for in the present petition, except the aforesaid directions as held by this Court in the case of Prashant Jayantilal Patel (supra), the petitioner has an effective remedy by way of a further appeal under Section 72 of the Act."

6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, considering the specially restricting the prayers of the petitioners to reasons under Section-71, this Court is inclined to accept the directions issued in the judgment in case of DILIP ATMARAM KAMLI (supra), and directed the Sub-Registrar to convey the reasons as contemplated under Section-71, if any, to the petitioners on his submissions of documents for registration within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order of this Court. The Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The contentions of both sides are kept open. The reasons to be conveyed to the petitioners within a period of Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 20:57:28 IST 2020 C/SCA/19723/2016 ORDER two months from today.

7. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in case the decision is against the interest of the petitioners, liberty to be reserved in his favour to challenge the same in accordance with law.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Direct service is permitted.

(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 13 20:57:28 IST 2020