C-^-M-y^ o Ben^ IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION(C1NO. W^ /2011 PETITIONERS ^y ^w ,«^/ ../:^ ^"^',J ^ ^ ^ •^ 1. Smt. Pramila Jain, wife of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Jain, aged 64 years, Occupation- &ovemment Servant, resident of Vivekanand Nagar, Ward No.19, Rajnandgaon (CG) ^' 2. bharmendra Jain, sonof Late Shri Jugal Kishore Jain, aged 35 years, Occupation- Government Contractor (B- Class), resident of Riddhi- Siddhi Colony, House No.38, Rajnandgaon (CG) ^ 3. Nitin Jain, son of Late Shri Jugal Kishore Jain, aged 34 years, Occupation-Government Contractor (A-Class), resident of Vivekanand Nagar, Ward No.19, Rajnandgaon (CG) 4.Lalit Bhansali, son of Late Jugraj Ji Bhansali, aged 35 years, Occupation-Business, resident of Kamthi Line, Ward No.24, Rajnandgaon (CG) Vs 1^!1 ^: RESPONbENTS : 1: state of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Departmentof Revenue, b.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Inspector General, Registration & Superintendent, Stamps, State of C.&., Tilak Nagar, Plot No.ll, In front of Shiv Temple, Avanti Vihar, J'elibandha, Raipur (CG) 3. Cotlector, Rajnandgaon (CG) 4. District Registrar, Rajnandgaon (C6) 5. Sub Registrar, Rajnandgaon (C6) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA PETmONERS RESPONDENTS HiGH COURTOF CHHATT1SGARH : BiLASPUR WRiT PETiTiON (C) N0. 4831 OF 2011 Smt. Pramila Jain & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (VVrit Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India) SinQie Bench : Hon?ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Presenl:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on thls 04th day of November, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the noting dated 08.03.2011, vvhereby, the Sub Reg'istrar under the provlsions of tne Registration Act, 1908, declined to register tne sa!e deed executed between petitioners No.1 to 3 cn one side and petitioner No.4 on other side on the ground that .in vlew ofthe memo 24,12.2009 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Coilector, Rajnandgaon, the deed cannot be registered. 2. Shri Sao, learned couosei appearing for the State submlts that the Registrar nas fuii power to deciine registration, ifthe saie'deed is not /properiy executed. Tnus, the Collector has not exoeeded his jurisdiction In direciing the Sub Registrar notto register the sale deed. 3. . The Issue asto wheth.er the Collector 'has competence and jurisdiction to direct the Registrar/ Sub Registrar to deciine reglstration of a docyment came into consideratlon in Sanjay Kvmar Kada &A.notherv. of Chhattssgarh & Others m W.P.(C) No.4374 of 2009. Thls Court, after naving examlned the issue from all angles, came to the condusion that the direction. of the Coliector is contrary to the statutory provisions and, as such, the Collector, cannot pass any direction to the Reglstrar/ Sub Reglstrar to deciine registration of a deed. it must be made dear that the Sub Reglstrar can exerdse his'power under the pfovlsions of law whlle examining the fegistration of the case independentiy de hors the djrection or command of the .District Coitector. ashoR ^ 5. In the instant case, it appears that the Reglstrar has not appiied his mind while declining the registrationof the disputed deed but has acted on the o? memo dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure P-1). Thus, the memo dated 24.12,2009 (Annexure P-1) and noting/order dated 08.03.2011, in respect of the instant case, are quashed. The Sub Registrar Is dlrected to examine the case in accordance with iavv on its own merit and take appropriate steps accordjngiy. The writ petition is aljov^ed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs, \ SatishK. Agnihotri Judge