Nachattar Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the competent authority/respondent concerned to register the judgment and decree dated 16.01.1997 (Annexures P-4 and P-5).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the decree-holder, seeks registration of the judgment and decree (supra) with the Sub-Registrar concerned. However, instead of proceeding with registration, the Sub-Registrar forwarded the document to the Collector concerned, on 03.06.1997, seeking his opinion as to whether the judgment and decree attracted stamp duty and registration fees. It is contended that, despite the lapse of more than two decades, neither any opinion has been furnished by the Collector nor has any decision been taken by the Sub-Registrar on the petitioner’s request for registration.

Upon notice, learned State counsel filed a detailed reply on behalf of the respondents, bringing on record certain additional facts which were not disclosed by the petitioner. It has been averred that the petitioner, along with his brothers, approached the Sub-Registrar in June, 1997, seeking registration of the decree dated 16.01.1997. However, when asked to pay the requisite stamp duty, they failed to deposit the same. Thereafter, at the request of the petitioner and his brothers, a copy of the decree was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner concerned, on 03.06.1997, seeking his opinion regarding the affixation of stamp duty and registration fees. It has been further stated that thereafter the petitioner neither deposited the requisite stamp duty nor pursued his request for registration for more than 12 years and eventually instituted the instant writ petition on 08.05.2017.

It further emerges from the reply that the actual owner of the property in question has transferred the same in favour of Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh vide transfer deed dated 01.06.2015, pursuant whereto mutation No.3150 was sanctioned in his favour. The said mutation proceedings were contested by the petitioner and his brothers, however, their challenge did not find favour with the competent authority. On these grounds, the respondents seek dismissal of the instant writ petition.

This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the contesting parties and has also perused the record.

It is a statutory obligation of the Sub-Registrar that, upon presentation of a document for registration, he is required to either register the same or pass an order refusing registration in accordance with law, particularly Section 35 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, in the present case, the Sub-Registrar, after forwarding the judgment and decree (supra) to the Collector as far back as on 03.06.1997 for his opinion under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as to whether the judgment and decree require affixation of stamp duty and registration fees, has failed to take any further decision on the petitioner’s request for registration. Thus, the request for registration has remained unattended for an inordinately long period.

This Court is of the considered view that the question as to whether the judgment and decree (supra) can be registered without affixation of proper stamp duty and registration fees, particularly in light of the supervening event of transfer of the property in question to a third party, ought to be adjudicated by the Sub-Registrar in the first instance, which unfortunately has not been done. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Registrar to decide the petitioner’s application, addressing the aforesaid issues, by passing a speaking order within the framework of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, after affording the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Disposed of accordingly.