1 2025:CGHC:33981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3754 of 2025 Pradeep Tirkey S/o. Late Shri Ishaque Tirkey, Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Khamhariya, Tehsil- Bhouthiya, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Collector Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sakti, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Tehsildar Bhothiya, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 5 - District Registrar, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 6 - District Registrar, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Sub- Registrar, Jaijaipur, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Dolomite Miing Corporation Firm, Through Its Partner- Pawanjay Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Umesh Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Sakreli (Baradwar), Tehsil Naya Baradwar, District Sakti (Chhatisgarh) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder- Ramakant Tiwari, S/o Late Shri Chandradev Tiwari, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Bilha, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At- Dolomit Mining Corporation Sakti Road, Baradwar, Sarkeli (Baradwar), District Sakti (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/07/2025 Heard. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner on the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (S), by quashing the impugned letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and in alternative prayer, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ (s), Order (5), Direction (5) by commanding the respondent authorities, particularly respondent no. 7 (Sub- Registrar Jaijaipur) either to endorse the sale deed document (Annexure P/5) by registering it or to pass an order, as prescribed under Section 71 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, within a time frame. 3 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant Petition is against the letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued from the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur (Respondent No. 7) and to the petitioner by declining to register the sale deed, which was proposed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.8 herein. Though the petitioner has obtained the requisite permission to sale the subject lands from the District Collector, Sakti on 19.02.2025 (Annexure P/2), then on 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/3) and on 18.06.2025 (Annexure P/4), the subject land situated at Village- Khamhariya, P.H. No. 4, Revenue Inspector Circle- Thathari, Tehsil-Bhothiya, District- Sakti (C.G.), bearing Khasra Nos:-778/1, 770/2, 781/6, 800/1, 800/2, 859/14, 859/15, 862/2, 863/1, 891, 892, 897, 903/2, 908, 912, 917, 921/2, 922/3 (total khasra number 18) and rakba Nos.0.101, 0.077, 0.040, 0.129, 0.134, 0.093, 0.065, 0.045, 0.154, 0.178, 0.170, 0.198, 0.644, 0.324, 0.202, 0.093, 0.405, 0.105 respectively. The Sub- Registrar, Jaijaipur (Respondent No.7) cannot decide the identity and the requisite requirement /eligibility, as prescribed under Section 4 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh land Revenue Code, 1959. At the most, the Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur has been bestowed with the power under Section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 to pass an order with reasons for refusal to register a document and endorse the words, "Registration Refused". No such power and function has been exercised by the Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur by declining to register the sale deed document proposed by the petitioner herein and on the contrary the impugned letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) has been issued by the officer of Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur. The act of issuing the impugned letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide in nature, which needs to be set aside by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by counsel for the parties. On bare perusal of impugned letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur (Respondent No. 7) in which it is stated that :- “ आपके द्वारा आज दि नांके 12.06.2025 के विक्रे ता प्र प विताके विपता इशहाके विताके के ता डो लो माईट माईनिंनांग के प!राशनां फमा# के पट#नांरा पनांजय अग्रलो विपता स्. उमाश प्रसा अग्रलो के द्वारा स्ताज 5 पज*यनां हाता+ प्रस्ता+ता विकेय गय हा,, जिजसाके जच विकेय गय ए मानांनां*य विधायके माहा य द्वारा प्रवि1ता आपत्ति3माय पत्र मा5 सालोग्नां जविता प्रमाण पत्र ग+मालो (वि8हारा) के हा,. ज विके छ3*सागढ़ राज्य सा 8हारा अन्य राज्य के हा,। आपके द्वारा राजिजस्ट्री विकेए गए स्ताज? मा5 भी* अनां+विभीग*य अधिधाकेरा* राजस् साक्ता* के द्वारा इसा राज्य के जविता प्रमाण पत्र भी* सालोग्नां हा,। इसा प्रकेरा एके हा* व्यक्तिक्ता के परास्परा त्तिभीन्न राज्य? द्वारा जरा* जविता प्रमाण पत्र प्रथमा दृष्ट्या विरा धाभीसा उत्पन्न केराता हाK ए सा हास्प प्रता*ता हा ता हाK। उपरा क्ता विरा धाभीसा ए सा हा के हा ता हुए आपके द्वारा प्रस्ता+ता स्ताज प्र* पज*यनां केमाके 202500182280 के पज*यनां हाता+ स्*केरा नांहाM विकेय ज साकेता ए जविता प्रमाण पत्र के सा हास्प हा नां केN क्तिOविता मा5 उपरा क्ता स्जज जविता प्रमाण पत्र के सालोग्नां विकेए 8ग,रा प्रस्ता+ता विकेय जनां मानांकेरा राजिजस्ट्रीकेराण पज*यनां विनांयमा 35 (डो.4) के अनां+सारा ” आपके द्वारा प्रस्ता+ता स्ताज के पज*यनां सा इनांकेरा विकेय जता हा,। 6. Section 35 (e-4) of the Registration Rules, 1939 provides as under :- “35(e-4). That the document purports to contravene the provisions of Section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 i.e. refusal under Section 165(10) of that Code.” 7. Section 71 on The Registration Act, 1908 provides as under : 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. “(1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words registration refused on the document; and,on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.” 6 8. On perusal of the order of the Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur District Sakti, I have found that he has not endorsed the words, “Registration Refused” on the document by declining the register the sale deed document proposed by the petitioner herein. 9. In view of the above, the impugned letter of communication dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Jaijaipur, District Sakti (Respondent No. 7) is hereby set aside and it is directed to respondent No.7 that passed the reasoned order as per rules, regulations and law expeditiously preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10.Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant