IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 2008 Date of decision: 16th December, 2009 Arjan Singh … Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Senior DAG, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and the Sub Registrar, Sub Tehsil Siwan, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal be directed to register the sale deed dated 20th October, 1969 on the basis of photocopy, as the original sale deed is not traceable in the office of the respondents. It will be necessary to recapitulate the facts as averred by the petitioner in his writ petition. Jai Singh, father of the petitioner, filed a suit on 28th July, 1974 under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for declaration and injunction in the Court of Subordinate Judge (First Class), Kaithal. The case set out by the father of the petitioner in the suit was that 26 kanals 11 marlas of land representing half share of 53 kanals 2 marlas belonged to one Tulsi Dass son of Dhannu Ram, resident of Siwan. It was averred in the suit that Tulsi Dass had entered into an agreement dated 13th August, 1969 to sell 33 kanals 17 marlas of the land to Arjan Singh, present petitioner, defendant No.6 to the suit. In the suit, present petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No. 904 of 2008 proceeded ex-parte. It was further stated that Tulsi Dass had received the entire sale consideration. Grievance of the plaintiffs in the suit was that Tulsi Dass has refused to execute the sale deed as agreed, after the plaintiffs have purchased the stamp papers and presented the same before Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The Sub Registrar had refused to register the sale deed, even though defendant No.6 to the suit, i.e. present petitioner, had purchased the stamp papers. The suit filed by father of the petitioner was dismissed, primarily on the ground that the suit was filed after a period of 30 days and was beyond the period of limitation. The appeal filed by father of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide order (Annexure P-2). The father of the petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal No.1654 of 1979. This Court on 23rd April, 1993 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below. Thereafter, in Civil Revision No.5718 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner (Annexure P-5), this Court directed the petitioners to file an application before the Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Guhla for registration of the sale deed dated 22nd October, 1969 in their favour in view of the order dated 23rd April, 1993. In compliance with the orders passed in Civil Revision (Annexure P-5) on August 20, 2002, petitioner filed application (Annexure P-6) before the Sub-Registrar, Sub Tehsil, Siwan, Distt. Kaithal for registration of the sale deed. In the present writ petition, notice of motion was issued. Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra on behalf of respondent No.1 has filed written statement and in the preliminary submissions made, it has been stated as under: “1. That as per direction dated 20/8/02 (Annexure P-5) passed by this Hon’ble High Court, the requisite action to comply with the order of Hon’ble High Court regarding 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 904 of 2008 registration of Sale Deed dated 22/10/69 is to be taken by the Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Guhla or the Sub Registrar/ Naib Tehsildar, Siwan, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. Answering respondent has already requested vide letter No.224, dated 8/6/2007 to the Joint Sub Registrar, Siwan, District Kaithal to consult the file of the Court case titled as Jai Singh Versus Pushpa Devi and others which was pending and decided by the Court of Sh.C.R. Goel, HCS, Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Kaithal for the search of original Sale deed in dispute. The file in which the appeal dated 12/6/1974 was heard by this office has been produced before the said Court at Kaithal by the then dealing hand/DRK Sh.Kartar Singh on dated 19/12/1975. It is further submitted that the original sale deed is not available in the office of answering respondent. 2. That the legal notice served by the petitioner was duly replied by the answering respondent vide Annexure P-9.” Counsel for the parties are in agreement that probably the sale deed was produced in the Civil Suit, which was instituted by the father of the petitioner in year 1974 and is not traceable now. The question arises as to what procedure should now be followed, when the sale deed submitted by the petitioner before the authorities is lost ? Whether he should be made to pay again the stamp fee or on the basis of the photostat copy, sale deed can be registered ? Mr.A.P. Bhandari, appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon ‘A.M.P.S. Muthuswamy v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and others’ AIR 1979 Madras 153. In the judgment relied upon by Mr.Bhandari, there was a provision in Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual, which reads as under: “In the case of an instrument impounded by a Judge for want of sufficient stamp and sent to the Collector under Section 38; Sub-Section (2), and lost in transit, held that the 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 904 of 2008 Collector may equitably deal with the copy as if it were the original, making a note on the document of the circumstances.” Counsel for the parties have not brought into my notice any such provision, which exists in Haryana Stamp Manual or in any rules and regulations. In these circumstances, Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal is directed to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioner had actually purchased the stamps or not ? Taking into consideration the findings of the Civil Court given in Regular Second Appeal No.1654 of 1979 (Annexure P- 3) and Civil Revision No.5718 of 1998 (Annexure P-5) and after hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner shall formulate his opinion whether the sale deed can be registered in the present case or not. In case the petitioner is able to satisfy that stamps were purchased and Tulsi Dass was bound to effect the sale deed of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner shall devise the method to redress the grievance of the petitioner, including registration of the sale deed on the basis of photostat copy shall be explored, provided authenticity of the same is not disputed. The Deputy Commissioner shall complete the entire exercise within six months after receipt of certified copy of this order. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE December 16, 2009 rps 4