CWP No.1740 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1740 of 2009 Date of decision: February 3, 2009. Sultan Singh & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. The Collector, Gurgaon & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This writ petition seeks quashing of the order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Collector-cum-Registrar, Gurgaon as well as the order dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon. While the first order has declined the petitioner's prayer to set aside/cancel the sale deed dated 1.10.2007, the second order has been passed by the Sub Registrar, refusing registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioners in respect of the same land. As per the petitioners' case, they were owners in possession of the some agricultural land situate in village Budka, District Gurgaon. They CWP No.1740 of 2009 -: 2 :- executed a general power of attorney regarding the said land in favour of respondent No.3 on 7.7.1995. The petitioners are stated to have cancelled the said general power of attorney by way of a cancellation deed dated 14.9.2007 registered at Sr. No.177 before the Sub Registrar, Rewari. Meanwhile, on the basis of the general power of attorney dated 7.7.1995, respondent No.3 has executed the sale deed dated 1.10.2007. After cancellation of the G.P.A., the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell on 26.9.2007 and presented the sale deed for registration on 27.12.2008. Having come to know that respondent No.3 has already executed a sale deed on the basis of the general power of attorney dated 7.7.1995, which they had already cancelled, the petitioners represented to the Registrar-cum-Collector, Gurgaon to invoke powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act and cancel the said sale deed. Their complaint has been turned down by the Collector vide the impugned order dated 1.10.2008. Similarly, the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon has declined to register the sale deed presented by the petitioners on 27.12.2008 on the plea that after execution of sale deed by respondent No.3 on 1.10.2007, they are no longer owners of the subject land. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the impugned orders, I am fo the considered that there are seriously disputed questions of facts involved in this case which cannot be effectively decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Mere execution of the cancellation deed by the petitioners before the Sub Registrar at Rewari in respect of the land which is situated within the revenue estate of district Gurgaon, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of CWP No.1740 of 2009 -: 3 :- committing any fraud by respondent No.3. In other words, the question, as to whether or not fraud has been committed, being a pure question of fact, has to be proved in appropriate proceedings where both the parties can have opportunities to lead their respective evidence. Similarly, so as long as the sale deed dated 1.10.2007 executed by respondent No.3 is not set aside/declared null and void, the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon cannot be compelled to execute another sale deed at the behest of the petitioners in respect of the same land as their title qua the same is presently under clouds. Any further observation by this Court may unnecessarily prejudice the case of either of the parties. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court. With a view to obviate the multiplicity of litigation which may arise if third party rights are created, it is directed that respondent No.3 shall maintain status quo with regard to the title of the subject land for a period of two months from today to enable the petitioners to approach the civil court along with an application for ad-interim injunction. February 03, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge