]I p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition_§_C) No.3335 of 2009 Smt. Kanti Pandey, Wife of Shri J.P. Pandey, aged about 42 years, resident of HIG-19, Arvindo Enclave, Near Pachpedhi Naka Chowk Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). Versus PETITIONER: 1. State of Chhattisgarh through RESPONDENT: Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax & Registration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Sub Registrar Raipur through S.K. Garhewal, Collectorate Compound, Raipur (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (25-8-201 1) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to respondent No.2 to comply the order dated 26—5-2008 passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Circuit Court, Raipur) in Original Case No.M/14/RIB-121l57/2008. 2. At the outset, Iearned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to argue the case finally and submits that the case has not been listed for final hearing, therefore, he has not prepared the case for final arguments. 3. ln the light of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.7003/2009, which is a connected matter, it is not possible to adjourn the case. 4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition, copy of order dated 26-5-2008 and copies of other documents. 5.‘ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the Sub—Registrar RaipUr, has registered the documents submitted for registration by Anup Kumar to Keshav Rao Bagde (since deceased, as per the information given by counsel for the petitioner) in the year 2005, but when Keshav Rao Bagde (since deceased) submitted the documents for registration in favour of the petitioner herein as sale deed in the year 2007, same has been refused by the Sub-Registrar on the filthy ground of production of some revenue record which was not just and proper. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to register the documents submitted by Keshav Rao Bagde (since deceased) in favour of the petitioner herein. . Denial of registration of the documents by the authority is appealable under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 which reads as follows: - “72. Appeal to Registrar from orders of Sub- Registrar refusing registration on ground other than deniai of execution—(1) Except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub—Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such'document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order. (2) lf the order of the Registrar directs the document to be registered and the document is duly presented for registration within thirty days after the making of such order, the Sub-Registrar shall obey the same, and thereupon shall, so far as may be practicable, follow the procedure prescribed in sections 58, 59 and 60; and such registration shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration.” 7. Considering the exhaustive remedy available to the petitioner and also the fact that in case of death of original seller Keshav Rao Bagde, the petitioner may require to amend the documents at the instance of legal representatives of the deceased seller, l do not find any propriety for issuing any direction against the exhaustive remedy and peculiar circumstances. . Consequently, the petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty of remedy to the petitioner available under the law and in the peculiar circumstances of the case. No order as to cos‘t_s;!, Sdl— T.P.Sharma r X Judge \