Sandeep v. Tehsildar Gohana And Another

Sr. No.104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8219 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.06.2020 Sandeep

...Petitioner

Versus

Tehsildar Gohana and another!!

... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

(Presence marked through video conference) *** ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) 1.

The limited grievance of the petitioner, inter-alia herein, is that despite his having submitted document of sale deed dated 13.12.2019 for registration and having deposited the appropriate stamp duty qua the same before the Registering Authority i.,e Tehsidlar Gohana /respondent No.1, the requisite steps are not being taken by the registering authority for registration of the said document.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even aToken No.9100051000 too was issued to the petitioner, but that is where the matter rests. Nothing is happening thereafter. He further points out that the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure P-4) requesting respondent No.2 to take further appropriate steps in accordance with law, but the same has also not been adverted till date. Hence, the instant petition. 3.

Notice of motion.

SONU 2020.06.18 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, DAG, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings on service of advance copy of the petition, accepts notice on behalf of State of Haryana.

5.

Given the nature of order being passed, there is no necessity to seek return by the respondents, as no further proceedings and/or pleadings are required.

6.

Learned State counsel submits that per her instructions it seems that the delay is owing to the current scenario caused by the pandemic due to which the State officials are busy fighting the war like situation and are preoccupied in other official exigencies which are of far more importance than the grievance of the petitioner.

7.

While on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the token had been issued to the petitioner, it was a mere formality of few minutes to be carried out for registering the document as all the other compliances have already been carried out by the petitioner. He further submits that under the garb of Pandemic, respondent No.2/vendor is trying to alienate the property despite having received the entire consideration and deposit of requisite stamp duty.

8.

Be that as it may, without commenting on the averments qua alienation of the property in dispute, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to proceed in accordance with law and take appropriate action qua registration of the document, as expeditiously as possible.

9.

Disposed of in above terms.

!

(ARUN MONGA) 18.06.2020 JUDGE shalini Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No SONU 2020.06.18 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Whether Reportable Yes/No