Satya Pal Anand vs State Of M.P. And Ors

The appellant, a septuagenarian, filed an application dated 4.2.2008 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal, the third respondent herein, for cancellation of registered documents dated 9.8.2001, 21.4.2004 and 11.7.2006 which pertain to registration of immoveable property situated on Plot No. 7-B, Punjabi Bagh, Raisen Road, Bhopal. As put forth by the appellant in his application, the said plot was allotted to his mother, Smt. Veeravali Anand, by the Punjabi Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (for short, “the Society”), the fourth respondent herein, by entering into a sale deed dated 22.3.1962, registered on 30.03.1962. Smt. Veeravali Anand expired on 12.6.1988. After her death, the fourth respondent, through its office bearer executed a Deed of Extinguishment on 9.8.2001 unilaterally cancelling the said allotment and on the strength of such document, executed a registered sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Mrs. Manjit Kaur, the respondent no. 5 herein. Mrs. Manjit Kaur in her turn executed another sale deed dated 11.7.2006 in favour of the respondent nos. 6 and 7, Mrs. Meenakhsi and Mr. S.C. Sharma.

2. As is evident, under these circumstances, the appellant moved the Sub- Registrar (Registration) seeking cancellation of the Deed of Extinguishment dated 9.8.2001. The Sub-Registrar rejected the said prayer on two counts, namely, the dispute between the parties was pending before the competent authority under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the 1960 Act’) and secondly, his jurisdiction was limited only to the extent of registering the documents and if any party desired its cancellation, then to verify that the cancellation deed is registered on appropriate stamp paper. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, “the Act”), which was rejected by the Inspector General (Registration) stating that the powers conferred on Inspector General (Registration) under Section 69 of the Act is limited to general superintendence of the registration office and making rules and not to provide hearing by any Sub-Registrar. The Inspector General further intimated him that against the order of Sub-Registrar, it was open to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 13505 of 2008 before the High Court. The prayer in the writ petition was for declaring the Extinguishment Deed as well as the subsequent sale deeds as void ab initio with a further direction to the respondents to record the cancellation of such documents. It was contended before the High Court that the Extinguishment Deed was registered contrary to the provisions contained in Section 17(1)(b) of the Act by the Sub-Registrar and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the higher authorities in exercise of powers under Section 69 of the Act to declare the said action as ab initio void and consequently the subsequent sale deeds to be void.

4. The said stand and stance of the appellant was resisted by the contesting respondents contending, inter alia, that as the initial allottee, Smt. Veeravali Anand, did not take any steps for 35 years to raise any construction on the plot in question, the respondent no. 4 registered the Extinguishment Deed on 9.8.2001. On the strength of said deed, the respondent society executed and registered the sale deed dated 21.4.2004 in favour of Manjit Kaur. At that juncture, the appellant and the respondents, to avoid any controversy, entered into a deed of compromise dated 6.7.2004 whereunder the appellant received consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- (rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only); Rs. 4,50,000/- by demand draft and Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs by post dated cheques. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 64 of the 1960 Act before the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, forming the subject matter of Dispute No. 81 of 2005. Along with said application, an application under Section 57(1) of the 1960 Act was filed for ad interim injunction which was granted by the said authority on 1.2.2006 restraining the respondents to make any construction over the said property. The said order of injunction stood vacated by order dated 12.4.2006. The said order vacating the order of injunction was affirmed by the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar was directed to finally adjudicate the dispute.

5. As the factual matrix would unveil as the appellant instituted many a legal proceeding against the respondents, they issued a notice on 12.7.2007 asking him to refund the consideration amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Against various orders, the appellant preferred three special leave petitions, i.e. SLP(C) No. 34857 of 2010, SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 and the present appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 9502 of 2012. The SLP(C) No. 34857 of 2010 was preferred assailing the maintainability of the revision petition and the said SLP is pending. SLP(C) No. 13255 of 2012 relates to appointment of receiver to protect his interest, which stood dismissed by order dated 17.7.2013. I shall refer to the said order in detail at the appropriate time.

6. The High Court took note of the factual assertions, scanned the relevant provisions of the Act, took note of the authorities cited by the appellant and eventually came to hold that the controversy raised by the appellant could be adjudicated before the appropriate forum and not in the writ proceeding. The High Court further held that the authorities under the Act had correctly stated that they have no jurisdiction to decide the soundness of registration of Extinguishment Deed or the sale deeds and declare them as null and void.

27. Having said that, I would have directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the larger Bench, but I am constrained to refer to certain other facts which are imperative to be stated. In the case at hand the factual score that is evincible is that the Society had executed a sale deed in favour of the mother of the appellant on 22.2.1962. As the construction was not raised and there was violation, as claimed by the society, it executed the Extinguishment Deed dated 9.8.2001 and cancelled the sale deed dated 22.2.1962. On the strength of the Extinguishment Deed, the Society executed and registered a sale deed in favour of other private respondents and further transactions took place. As the factual matrix would reveal, the dispute raised by the appellant under Section 64 of the 1960 Act is still pending before the competent authority for adjudication. The said authority has the jurisdiction to hold whether cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the mother of the appellant was justified in law. The said order is further subject to appeal and other proceedings and, therefore, I refrain from adverting to the same.

On the basis of the registration of the Extinguishment Deed with respect to the said plot of land, the subsequent allotment of the said plot of land took place and the sale deed was registered by the society in favour of Mrs. Manjeet Kaur-respondent No.5, who further alienated the said plot and registered another sale deed in favour of the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

……………………………………………………………J. [V.GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, August 25, 2015 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6673 OF 2014 Satya Pal Anand Appellant(s) Versus State of M.P. and Others Respondent(s) O R D E R In view of the difference of opinion between us, the Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, so that an appropriate Bench could be constituted for hearing the matter.

August 25, 2015.