Chattisgarh High Court
Dayaram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2025
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.
Digitally signed
by JYOTI JHA
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Date:
2025.08.13
11:29:49
+0530
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
2provisions 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
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