IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22572 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 21, 2010. Namish Kumar .....Petitioner versus District Collector, Sangrur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ashok Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Brar, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 & 2 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at this stage. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to issue notice to respondent Nos.3 & 4 nor the counter reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 is required at this stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Sub Registrar, Dhuri, whereby he has refused to register the sale deed purported to have been executed by respondent Nos.3 & 4 in favour of the petitioner pertaining to 1/9th share in C.W.P.No .22572 of 2010 2 a residential property, as well as the order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Sangrur, upholding the above-stated order. Both the Authorities have declined to register the said sale deed on the plea that description of the property given in the sale deed in question is totally vague and it is difficult to identify as to whether it is within or outside the Lal Lakir of the village. Section 21 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, mandates that no non-testamentary document relating to an immovable property shall be accepted for registration unless it contains a description of such property sufficient to identify the same. In the event of any vagueness, it is implied in the provision also when read with Section 25 (2) of the Act, that the Registering Officer may satisfy himself with regard to genuineness of the document presented for registration. Since the Sub Registrar, Dhuri, has declined to register the sale deed for want of correct description of the property, no interference in the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner or the vendors to appear before the Sub-Registrar and produce the relevant records/proof/evidence and satisfy the said Authority with regard to correct description of the property sought to be transacted. With liberty afore-mentioned, the writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. December 21, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE