1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1679/2001. Mahendra Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order :: 9th March 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.M.C.Bhoot ) Mr.Surendra Singh), for the petitioners. Mr.Rajkamal Soni & Mr.K.K.Bissa, Government Counsel. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The document in question, said to be for transfer of mining lease as executed between the petitioner Mahendra Singh and the transferee, respondent No.5 Basantilal (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) bearing the date 05.04.2000 and carrying the approval of the Mining Department, was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Rajsamand on 07.04.2000 by the transferee Basantilal. However, the petitioner through his power of attorney holder raised objections against its registration while alleging that he was coerced to sign the document and the transferee had not adhered to the terms of settlement either and thus, he was not interested in transferring the mining 2 lease. The Sub-Registrar, Rajsamand refused to register the document in view of such objections and directed its return by his order dated 14.09.2000. It appears that the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2000 was challenged by the transferee Basantilal in Registration Appeal No.2/2000 before the Collector, Rajsamand who proceeded to allow the appeal and directed the Sub-Registrar to proceed in accordance with Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 45 of Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955. The petitioner has filed this petition for writ with the submissions, inter alia, that the order dated 19.12.2000 was passed by the Appellate Authority behind his back without extending him any opportunity of hearing. Along with this petition, the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the disputed document as Annexure-3 that carries the endorsement dated 14.09.2000 of the Sub- Registrar, Rajsamand refusing to register the document and so also the endorsement dated 19.12.2000 of the Collector, Rajsamand setting aside such order of the Sub-Registrar and directing him to proceed, as noticed above. It has, inter alia, been pointed out during the course of submissions that while seeking to challenge the order dated 19.12.2000, the petitioner has not filed a copy thereof; and 3 that the endorsement as made on the document (Annex.3) by the Collector had only been of the operative portion of the order passed in the appeal. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the order as passed by the Collector concerned on 19.12.2000 was directed to be placed on record and a photostat thereof has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Nos. 5/1 to 5/3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never joined as a party to the said appeal and was not even know of the fact that a separate order had been passed by the Collector concerned. A bare perusal of the order dated 19.12.2000 as passed in Registration Appeal No. 2/2000 makes it clear that the learned Collector has chosen to ignore the very fundamentals of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner, on whose objection had the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document, was never joined as a party to the said appeal nor the learned Collector issued him any notice. A submission was made before the learned Collector that the document in question having been executed between the Mining Department and the appellant; and the Mining Engineer having not denied its execution, the third party was not even required to be noticed. The learned Collector proceeded to observe that 4 the matter was of partial denial and the mining lease was to be executed between the appellant and the State Government. The approach of the learned Collector falls too short of objective consideration of the matter in accordance with law. The document in question was not a simple document of lease between the State Government and the transferee; but the same was an indenture for transfer of mining lease from the petitioner to the respondent No.5; and the petitioner was supposed to be a party to the same. Moreover, once the Sub- Registrar had refused to register the document in view of the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner, an appeal against such refusal could not have even been maintained without joining the petitioner a party thereto. By the order as made by the Sub-Registrar, valuable rights existed in favour of the petitioner and any interference therewith could not have been made without hearing the petitioner. Though the petitioner has not filed the copy of the order dated 19.12.2000 with this writ petition but it has not been shown anywhere if the petitioner was made aware before filing of this writ petition that the learned Collector had passed any such separate order in the said appeal. In any case, such an order, having been filed before this Court and being suffering from all the shortcomings including the fundamental one about 5 denial of opportunity of hearing, cannot be allowed to stand at all. However, looking to the nature of dispute, it appears appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Collector concerned for decision of the said appeal afresh in accordance with law. As a result of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 19.12.2000 is quashed and set aside; Registration Appeal No.2/2000 shall stand restored before the Collector, Rajsamand wherein the legal representatives of the transferee (respondents Nos.5/1 to 5/3 herein) shall stand substituted as the appellants and the present petitioner shall stand impleaded as the respondent No.2. The parties through their counsel present before this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the Collector, Rajsamand for hearing of the said appeal on 02.04.2009 who shall be expected to extend adequate opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and then to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK Mohan