1 2025:CGHC:39477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3061 of 2024 1 - Dayaram S/o Budhu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khadgawa, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shyampati W/o. Dayaram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khadgawa, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Capital Complex, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Registrar, Surajpur, Office Of Registrar, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For petitioners : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mrs. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order passed by the Sub-Registrar dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and the Sub- Registrar, Surajpur may kindly be directed to register sale-deed of the petitioners in accordance with the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.13 11:29:49 +0530 2 provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. 10.2 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this the second round of litigation. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by Sub-Registrar, Surajpur whereby the sale deed presented by the petitioners for registration has been returned without registration under 3.4 of Rule 35 of Registration act 1908. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owner of land bearing Kh. No. 46 area 0.350 hectare situated at Village Khadgawa, Tahsil Bhaiythan, District Surajpur. The said land is agricultural land therefore no prior permission is required under C.G land Revenue code 1959. The petitioners were facing financial crunch therefore they agreed to sale the property to one Ramprasad on consideration of Rs. 60,000/- The petitioners presented the sale deed for registration before Sub- Registrar, Surajpur for registration but same was returned on 08.08.2022 with endorsement that as per direction issued by Collector, Surajpur no sale deed should be registered unless the B-1, Khasra is issued by Tahsildar. The said order was passed by Sub-registrar in light of the direction issued by the Collector, Surajpur on 13.01.2015. On 26.11.2020 Inspector General of Registrars, Raipur, had issued direction to Collectors of entire 3 state that as per direction issued by Commissioner, Bhu- Abhilekh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh B-1, Khasra issued digitally should be considered for registration of sale deeds and further direction was issued that no Registrar shall seek B-1 Khasra signed by Patwari and Tahsildar for registration of sale deed. It is further submitted that, in direction issued by Inspector General of Registrars, Raipur the Registrar, Ambikapur has further issued direction to all Sub-Registrar of Surguja, Surajpur Balrampur-Ramanjuganj to strictly follow the direction issued on 20.11.202. Despite of the direction issued by Inspector General of Registrar, Raipur and Registrar, Surguja, the Sub-Registrar instead of following the direction issued by Inspector General of Registrar followed the guidelines and instructions issued by the Collector and as a consequence the sale deed was returned on 08.08.2023. The order dated 08.08.2023 was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in W.P.C no. 4419/2023. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06.02.2024 had disposed off the writ petition with direction to consider the sale deed for registration after considering relevant provision of registration act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Association of India & others v/s. Director General of Civil Aviation & others" reported in 4 2011 (5) SCC 435 has held that:- [26] The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29.5.2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the Statutory Authority. In a democratic set up like ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide: The Purtabpur Co., Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., 1970 AIR(SC) 1896; Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., 1984 AIR(SC) 322; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 2524; and Manohar Lal (D) by L.Rs. v. Ugrasen (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 2210). [27] Similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1952 AIR(SC) 16; Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors., 2004 AIR(SC) 1159; and Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2008 AIR(SC) 1888, observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the Constitutional scheme. 6. From bare perusal of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is abundantly clear that the order passed by the Collector directing the Registrar or Sub- Registrar not to register the sale-deed is illegal, without jurisdiction and it violates the constitutional scheme, therefore he prays for quashing the order passed by the Sub-Registrar 5 dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and prays for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Surajpur to register sale-deed of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. 7. Learned State Counsel submits that while submitting the sale the petitioners have produced only the digital revenue documents and they have not mentioned the details with regard to settlement of the land or the land in question is a leased out government land or not. As such, the authority has found the sale-deed of the petitioners doubtful and asked them to submit counter signed revenue documents, however, they did not submit the same, therefore the sale deed has been returned to the petitioners as per Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. On 26.11.2020 (Annexure P/3), the Inspector General of Registrars, Raipur, had issued direction to Collectors of entire state that as per direction issued by Commissioner, Bhu- Abhilekh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh B-1, Khasra issued digitally should be considered for registration of sale deeds and further direction was issued that no Registrar shall seek B-1 Khasra signed by Patwari and Tahsildar for registration of sale deed. 10. Looking the circular issued by the Inspector General of 6 Registrars, Raipur on 26.11.2020 and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Sub- Registrar Surajpur. The petitioner is directed to present the sale deed along with the details with regard to settlement of the land or the land in question is a leased out government land or not, before the Sub-Registrar Surajpur and in turn Sub-Registrar Surajpur shall consider the registration of sale deed of the petitioner as per provisions of Section 70 of the Registration Act. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti