Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 27, 2011 Kirpal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab for the State. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 & 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking writ of certiorari/mandamus for quashing memo dated 7.12.2007 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Dandi Swami Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, directing the Sub-Registrar, Payal, not to register the sale certificate and not to sanction the mutation of the property, which was earlier Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2009 -2- owned by M/s Kirpal Alloys Private Limited, and has been purchased by the petitioner through auction held at the instance of Punjab National Bank i.e. respondent No.7. Punjab National Bank issued an auction notice in newspaper for auction of the property of M/s Kirpal Alloys Pvt. Ltd. On 18.3.2007. The petitioner submitted his sealed tender. The auction was held by the Bank and the petitioner being highest bidder, was declared as successful auction purchaser. The Bank issued a sale certificate in favour of the petitioner on 7.5.2007 and described the property to be free from all encumbrances. On 16.5.2007, the petitioner made a representation to Tehsildar, Payal as well as Sub- Registrar, Payal to register the sale certificate and to sanction the mutation in his favour. Sub-Registrar, Payal, wrote a letter to Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Dandi Swami Chowk, Ludhiana, intimating about registering the sale certificate and about sanctioning of the mutation in favour of the petitioner. In response, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department (respondent No.5) initiated the impugned letter directing the Sub-Registrar, Payal, not to register the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and not to sanction mutation. The plea raised in the impugned communication was that amount of 81,61,249/- along with interest and penalty of 7817189/- was pending realization against the property sold in auction. Though it is conceded that though CWP No.228 of 2006 filed by the Department was dismissed by this Court, but it is pointed out that the Department has filed SLP against the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Sub-Registrar in turn wrote to Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2009 -3- respondent No.5 to produce the stay order within 7 days, failing which the sale certificate was likely to be registered in favour of the petitioner. Still, the Sub-Registrar did not register the sale certificate. The petitioner, thereafter, had approached to the respondents for registering the sale certificate and to sanction mutation, but the Sub- Registrar did not do so forcing the petitioner to approach this Court. The respondents have filed reply. Once the petitioner has been successful in purchasing this property through auction, the same was bound to be registered by the Sub-Registrar as such. Sub-Registrar may have initially some justification for not doing so when it came to his notice that the judgment passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the Department was subject matter of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but if order passed in the writ petition had acquired finality, there would hardly be any justification to decline registration of the sale certificate. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the LPA and SLP filed against the judgment in CWP No.3413 of 2004, decided on 4.12.2006 have already been dismissed and thus, the judgment has acquired finality. This position is not disputed by counsel appearing for UOI as well the State of Punjab. That being the position, there is no justification on the part of the respondent- Sub Registrar to decline registration of the sale certificate. During the pendency of the petition some observations were made that there may be some charge on the property, which has also now been clarified. Even on the asking of Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2009 -4- the Court, Punjab State Power Corporation had been impleaded as party-respondent and stands served. No one has chosen to appear on its behalf . Otherwise also counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he is an individual party and has got no connection with M/s Kirpal Alloys, who may be having a liability to discharge in respect of newly added respondent No.9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Direction is hereby issued to respondents No.3 & 4 to register the sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and to sanction mutation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner has also pressed for his claim for damages/compensation for non-registration of the sale certificate on account of which he has not been able to enjoy the fruits of property for so many y-ears. The petitioner, if so advised, may have his alternative remedy for seeking damages in case he considers himself entitled to the same. April 27, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE