/ .- 56. * + 58. + 59. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 2135/2011 & CMNo.4542i2011 (for stay). MIS GADGET BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Zeenat Masoodi for Mr. Najmi . Waziri, Advocate for R-1&2. AND W.P.(C) 2137/2011 & CM No.4545/2011 (for stay). MIS TOWNSEND CONSTRUCTIONS & EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate. versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Zeenat Masoodi for Mr. N ajmi Waziri, Advocate for R-1&2. AND + W.P.(C) 2138/2011 & CM No.4547/2011 (for stay). MIS ELEVATOR PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rahul Kwnar, Advocate. 11- Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified % versus GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR J1rrough: ..... Respondents Ms. Zeenat Masoodi for Mr. N ajmi Waziri, Advocate for R -1 &2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI END LAW ORDER 30.03.2011 1. All the three petitions impugn the order dated 26th Februmy, 2011 of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances (VI.:C), Saraswati Vihar, Delhi refusing the registration of five Sale Deeds presented by the petitioners for registration. 2. The petitioners had earlier preferred W.P.(C) No.2692,2703 & 2725 all of 2010 in this Court in this regard. It appears that then, registration was being refused owing to Section 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. It was then the contention of the petitioners that since the land subject matter of the Sale Deeds had not been notified for acquisition, no NOC was necessa.J.Y. The petitioners in this regard were relying upon the infonnation received to an RTI query. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide order dated 23rd April, 2010 by directing the Sub-Registrar to pass an order whether NOC was required or not. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that notwithstanding the said order, the Sub-Registrar did not pass any order leading to the filing of Contempt Case No.384,391&392/2010 in this Court and which are still pending consideration. 21- ' . 4. It is contended by the senior counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 26th Februaty, 2011 impugned in these petitions has been passed vindictively owmg to the petitioners having preferred Contempt proceedings. 5. The Sub-Registrar, in the order dated 26th February, 2011, while has accorded satisfaction that NOC is not required, neveitheless refused registration owing to there being a stay against such registration in some other proceedings. The Sub-Registrar in this regard has relied upon the administrative instructions dated 28th November, 2000 directing the Sub- Registrars to not register documents with respect to which there is a stay. 6. The senior counsel for the petitioners has firstly contended that no such ground having been taken earlier when order in the eat·lier writ petitions preferred by the petitioners was ,nade, could not have been taken. 7. I atn unable to agree. Merely because then registration was refused on one ground would not preclude the· Sub-Registrar from while exatnining the matter refuse registration on any other ground found tenable. ''- 8. The semor counsel has then contended that the administrative instructions cannot prohibit registration; that the stay even if any is with respect to land subject matter of two Sale Deeds only and not with respect to the other three Sale Deeds, registration whereof also has been wrongly declined. 31- 9. The senior counsel admits that Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides for the remedy of appeal to the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar. He however contends that since the order in the present case has been made with malajide intention owing to the Contempt having been filed, the writ petitions would be maintainable. 10. Though admittedly the rule of alternative remedy is not a mandatory rule but nevertheless in the face of an alternative remedy this Court ordinarily refuses to exercise jurisdiction. Moreover in the present case an inquity will have to be conducted as to with respect to which land there is a . stay order and the party which claims to have taken the stay, may also be required to be heard. All this enquity is best cohducted in the alternative remedy of appeal rather than before this Court. I therefore do not see any !-"' reason for not following the rule of availability of alternative remedy barring the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The senior counsel for the petitioners has then contended that the last date for preferring the appeal is tomorrow i.e. 31st March, 2011. He seeks extension of time for filing the appeal. Apprehension is also expressed about the delays in decision of the appeal. 12. I fmd that the registration of Sale Deeds 1s pending smce 18th December, 2009. 13. The counsel for the respondent apgeating on advance notice has no instructions. 41- ' ..•. ·, cr" . j"" 14. The writ petitions are disposed of as not maintainable for the reason of availability of the alternative remedy of appeal and with liberty to the petitioners to avail the same and with the following directions:- 0 a. that subject to the appeals being preferred on or before 15th April, 2011, the same shall be considered on merits without objection as to limitation; b. the Appellate Auth01ity/Registrar is directed to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 20th July, 2011. No order as to costs. Dasti. CM No.4543/2011 in W.P.(C) No.2135/2011, CM No.4546/2011 in W.P.(C) No.2137/2011 & CM No.4548/2011 in W.P.(C) No.2138/2011 (all for exemption). Allowed, subject to just exceptions. MARCH 30, 2011 pp ..