Chandra Shekhar Gupta@Chander Shekhar Gupta v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/235/2025 Chandra Shekhar Gupta @ Chander Shekhar Gupta Vs.

Union of India and Others Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.

(through virtual mode) Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Ms. Supreet Sharma ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondent No. 2&3 Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. K.Sneha Ms. K. Bhawani ... for the respondent no.4 June 19, 2025 [AKB] Item No.38 Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is taken on record. Affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 2 and 3 filed by the petitioner is also taken on record.

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction upon respondent authorities particularly respondent No.3 to registrar the deed of conveyance annexed to the writ petition being annexure P5.

Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that despite there being compliance of all necessary formalities for execution of deed of sale, the registering authorities on the ground of pendency of civil litigation is not registering the deed of conveyance to be executed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the plots-in-question. Further he indicates that the civil suit has been filed in respect of separate plots and not the ones which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. Further as per Section 71 of the Registration Act the registering authority is duty bound to register a document. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in K.Gopi vs. Sub-

Registrar and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 740, he submits that while declaring Rule 55 A of Registration Rules framed by Government of Tamil Nadu, which provided that the registering authority will not register a document relating to immovable property unless previous original deeds was produced and Encumbrance Certificate was obtained, as ultra vires held that the registering authority cannot go into the question of title of the executant. Therefore, in such circumstances the registering authority has no other option but to register the document presented before it by the executant subject to compliance of necessary formalities by the executant. The registering authority without any rhyme or reasons is sitting over the matter. He seeks for appropriate directions upon the Sub-Registrar to take a decision with regard to registration of document presented before it by the petitioner.

Mr.

Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and 3 submits that the plot numbers mentioned in the deed of conveyance uploaded in the website of the registering authority includes the plots numbers of the civil suit in respect of which order of injunction has been passed. The deed of conveyance annexed to the writ petition is not the one which has been presented before the registering authority. The petitioner has suppressed such fact before this Court. Since there is an order of injunction passed by the Civil Court in respect of the plots which has been included in the deed of conveyance, the Sub-Registrar could not pass any order. However, the SubRegistrar under the law is required to pass order in respect of a document which is presented for registration.

He seeks that the matter be relegated to the Sub-Registrar to discharge his functions in terms of Section 71 of the Registration Act. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 also submits that the deed of conveyance annexed to the writ petition is not the one which was uploaded in the website of the registering authority. The deed of conveyance which has been presented for registration includes the plots numbers against which order of injunction has been passed in Other Suit No. 227 of 2024. The order of injunction passed by Civil Court has been duly communicated to the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner played fraud upon the Court by not producing the deed of conveyance uploaded in the website of the registering authority.

However, she also submits Sub-Registrar under law is required to pass the order in respect of a document presented before it for registration.

In reply Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner informs the court that his client has already submitted

an affidavit before the registering authority mentioning the plots against which the registration has been sought for. Admittedly, respondent No.3, the Sub-Registrar, Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil has not taken any decision pertaining to the deed of conveyance presented before it for registration. Considering the submission advanced at the bar, respondent No. 3, Sub-Registrar, Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, South Andaman is directed to consider and decide the aspect pertaining to registration of the deed of conveyance presented before it by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order upon notice to the parties including respondent No.4 in accordance with law.

Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.3, Sub-Registrar, Sri Vijaya Puram Tehsil, South Andaman.

With the aforesaid direction the instant writ petition being WPA/235/2025 is disposed of.

All connected application, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

( Bivas Pattanayak, J. )