Shri. Chinmoy Dey v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/325/2025 Shri Chinmoy Dey Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar Administration & Others Mrs. G. Mini ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar ... for the respondents July 14, 2025 [AKB] Item No.11 1.

The writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner South Andaman District, Sri Vijaya Puram, wherein the Deputy Commissioner being appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and given liberty to the petitioner to pursue mutation of the land in accordance with the Will of late Santosh Kumar Dey or in the alternative to execute a fresh family settlement deed disassociating the will supported by the necessary legal documentation.

2.

Ms. G. Mini, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the land bearing survey no. 40/1/7 corresponding to new survey no. 2415 measuring areas of 0.0743 hectares situated at South Point village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner Late Santosh Kumar Dey. The father of the petitioner during his life time has executed a Will on

28.06.2021 bequeathing the land measuring an area of 500 Sq. mtrs. to the brother of the petitioner namely Sukumar Dey and 243 Sq. mtrs. to the petitioner.

3.

She submits that after the death of his father the petitioner, instead of claiming any share with respect of the Will executed by his father, a settlement was arrived between the legal heirs of deceased Santosh Kumar Dey and accordingly a family settlement deed was entered between all the legal heirs i.e. Bishu Priya Dey, wife of the deceased; Sukumar Dey, son; Subinoy Dey, son; Chinmoy Dey, son (petitioner) and Anamika Mallick, daughter.

4.

Ms. Mini submits that after execution of family settlement deed between all the legal heirs the same was submitted before the Sub Registrar for registration through online on 08.12.2022. The Sub Registrar has refused to register the family settlement deed and returned to the petitioner through online on 04.04.2023 with the endorsement 'the executors of settlement deed are not the recorded tenant as per Form F submitted hence before registration of family settlement deed the applicants are required for mutation of subject land in their name and requested to resubmit after mutation'.

5.

Being aggrieved with the said refusal, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Registrar but the same was not disposed of and accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction upon the appellate

authority for disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

6.

By an order dated 24.07.2023 this Court has directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner any other person interested.

7.

After the direction passed by this Court, the appellate authority has passed the impugned order on 09.07.2025 holding that the family settlement deed submitted by the petitioner cannot be registered in its current form as the executors have not acquired legal title over the property through mutation or probate, and the deed relies on a Will that has not been given effect. The Registrar dismissed the appeal with the liberty to the petitioner to pursue mutation of the land in accordance with the Will of late Santosh Kumar Dey or in the alternative to execute a fresh family settlement deed disassociating the Will, supported by necessary legal documents.

8.

Ms. Mini submits that after the death of the father of the petitioner and before entering into the family settlement deed, the petitioner has obtained family member certificate from the Tehsildar, Port Blair Tehsil on 08.07.2022 wherein name of all the legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey is mentioned. She submits that the petitioner is not interested to the take the benefit of the Will and all the legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey come to a settlement for distribution of shares in the landed property

left by the father and accordingly a family settlement deed was entered. She submits that the Sub Registrar or the Registrar cannot say that either the Will is to be disassociated from the settlement deed or to obtain probate. 9.

Ms. Mini submits that there is no dispute that all the parties to the settlement deed are the legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey and if the family settlement deed is registered, as per the family settlement deed, the land will be mutated and sub divided amongst the parties. She submits that none of the parties have raised any objection with respect of the family settlement deed but the Sub Registrar and the appellate authority had directed the petitioner for mutation of the said land before execution of the family settlement deed.

10.

Ms. Mini submits that the petitioner has properly executed the family settlement deed and presented the same before the Sub Registrar and thus there is no reason for refusal of family settlement deed. She submits that the Sub Registrar or the Registrar cannot force the petitioner to first mutate the said land before the execution of the family settlement deed or to force the petitioner to obtain probate or to disassociate the Will from the family settlement deed. 11.

Per contra, Mr. V.D.Sivabalan with Mr. Arun S. Kumar submits that the land is still recorded in the name of the deceased father and without mutation, the petitioner has executed a family settlement deed thus the deed cannot be

registered unless the land is mutated in the name of all legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey.

12.

Mr. Sivabalan submits that the petitioner has also disclosed in the family settlement deed with regard to the Will but the petitioner has not obtained any probate of the said Will. He submits that if the petitioner is not interested to claim the property in terms of the Will, the petitioner ought not to have disclose the same in the family settlement deed.

13.

Mr. Sivabalan submits that unless and until the land is not mutated in the joint name of all the legal heirs in the revenue record, the Sub Registrar would not be in a position to identify whether the petitioner along with his mother, brother and sister is having any share over the property in question.

14.

Mr. Sivabalan submits that the Sub Registrar as well as Registrar have not refused to register the family settlement deed, only the authorities have advised the petitioner either to get the land mutated in their joint name or to get the probate before entering into the settlement deed. He submits that if the petitioner will submit the document showing that the land in question is mutated in the name of all the legal heir of deceased Santosh Kumar Dey, there will be not difficulty to register the family settlement deed.

15.

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the impugned order.

16.

Initially the Sub Registrar has returned the family settlement deed to the petitioner on the ground that the executors of settlement deed are not the recorded tenant as per Form-F submitted by the petitioner along with the family settlement deed and the executors are required to get the land mutated in their name and requested to submit after mutation.

17.

The appellate authority has upheld the reason for not registration of the family settlement deed and the appellate authority has also given liberty to pursue mutation of the land either in accordance with the Will or in the alternative to execute a fresh deed disassociating the Will, supported by necessary legal documentation.

18.

The appellate authority has directed the petitioner either to get probate or to disassociate the Will from the family settlement deed. This Court finds that the said finding of the appellate authority is perverse. The petitioner has disclosed that there is a Will but the petitioner and the other legal heirs are not intending that to go with the Will executed by the father. After the death of the father all legal heirs have come to a settlement with regard to distribution of shares in the landed property left behind by the deceased father. Whether the petitioner disclosed the Will or they are interested or not interested to get probate is not the matter look into by the Sub Registrar while registering the family settlement deed.

19.

The Registrar as well as Sub Registrar has directed the petitioner to get the land mutated in their name and to submit the family settlement deed after the mutation is also perverse. There is no dispute with regard to legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey. After the death of the father, the Tehsildar has issued family member certificate disclosing name of all the legal heirs of Santosh Kumar Dey. There is no dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey. The legal heirs with their consent have entered into a family settlement deed. It is also admitted that the land is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the land not belongs to Santosh Kumar Dey.

20.

If the Sub Registrar registered the family settlement deed, naturally the next step is to be taken by the petitioner to submit before the Tehsildar for mutation and after the mutation, the said land will be partitioned/sub divided amongst the legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Dey as per the family settlement deed.

21.

Section 35 of the Registration Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power on the registering authority. The registering officer is expected to reassure that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document. The examination to be done by the Registrar is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the Registration Act. The function of

Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasijudicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by a person having title, as mentioned in the instrument.

22.

If a document otherwise complying with the statutory requirement and formalities is presented for registration, the registering authority is bound to register it. It is not for the registering authority to inquire and ascertain the title to its own satisfaction. Under the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1888, if transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be prejudice of the transferee and not of any concern to the registering authority.

23.

Sub Registrar can refuse registration only on the grounds that mentioned under the Act or the Rules for such refusal. He must refer to the relevant provision so that the concerned party can take steps to ensure compliance. The registering authority is duty bound to register the same, if the said document is otherwise complying with the statutory requirement and formalities.

24.

This Court finds that the reasons for which the Sub Registrar as well as the Registrar being the appellate authority refuse to register family settlement deed submitted by the petitioner are not conformity with the law and is not sustainable under law and the same are set aside and quashed.

25.

The Sub Registrar is directed to register the family settlement deed submitted by the petitioner, if otherwise compliance with all provisions of law within a period of two weeks from the date receipt of this order.

26.

WPA/325/2025 is disposed of.

( Krishna Rao, J. )