In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8135 of 2007 Date of Decision:01-05-2008 Smt. Neetu Mittal and others ---Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G.Haryana M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for issuing a direction to respondent No. 4-Sub Registrar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar to register the sale deed presented by them and discharge his statutory duties as per provisions of para XI of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity 'the Act'). The grievance made is that the Sub Registrar-respondent No. 4 is not registering the sale deed when it was presented before him. He has declined the request without recording any reason as per requirement of Section 71 of the Act. C.W.P.No.8135 of 2007 -2- In the written statement, the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that the petitioners have derived their title from their vendor on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney and, therefore, they cannot transfer a fresh valid title to any prospective vendee. By giving the details of fraudulent power of attorney in circulation which lead to issuance of instructions. It has been asserted in para 2 of the written statement that one Sh.Ram Nath and Shri Rajesh Kumar sons of Shri Chuni lal, residents of Sri Nagar Colony, Jagadhari, had prepared a bogus power of attorney in favour of one Surinder Kumar Sehgal son of Shri G.M.Sehgal, resident of house No. 162/2, Ram Nagar, Gulab Nagar, Jagadhari on 27.7.2005. Copy of the power of attorney has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. The aforementioned power of attorney is stated to have been registered by the office of the Sub Registrar, Tatipur (Madhya Pradesh) on the basis of which sale deed dated 21.10.2005 bearing Vasika No. 8476 has been executed by Ram Nath and Rajesh Kumar through their general power of attorney Surinder Kumar Sehgal in favour of the petitioner by fraud on Sub registrar, Jagadhari. A copy of the sale deed dated 21.10.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. On enquiries made later, it has been found that there is no office of the Sub Registrar at Tatipur in Madhya Pradesh. It was thereafter that instructions have been sent through fax message by the Government to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State intimating that any power of attorney registered by the office of the sub Registrar, Tatipur (Madhya Predesh) should not be accepted as these are bogus. In the present case also the petitioner has acquired title from their earlier vendor on the basis of general power of attorney which was registered at Tatipur (Madhya C.W.P.No.8135 of 2007 -3- Pradesh) and the same has been regarded as bogus document because there is no office of Sub Registrar at Tatipur (Madhya Pradesh). It is in these circumstances that the sale deed has been refused from registration in order to avoid fraud being played on the vendees of the petitioners. It is thus in larger public interest that respondent state has rightly issued the instructions to all the officers throughout the State on 22.2.2006 (Annexure R-3) in order to avoid perpetration of any fraud on a prospective vendee. The fact that there is no office of the Sub Registrar at Tatipur (Madhya Pradesh) has not been controverted or disputed by the petitioner nor the instructions dated 22.2.2006 (Annexure R-3) have been assailed before us. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE May 01, 2008 paramjit