SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF 2008   (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)  

NO. 3823 of 2007)

Naren Chandra Naskar               ...Appellant

Vs.

Arun Bhattacharya & Ors.      ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Two Conveyances in respect of two different

plots  of  land,  both  shown  to  have  been

registered  before  the  District  Registrar,

South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, on 14.3.1989,

being Deed No.3203 of 1989 and recorded in

1

Book  No.1,  Volume  No.75,  at  Pages  167-174,

have  given  rise  to  Alipore  Police  Station

Case No.110 of 2006.  The said complaint was

filed  by  Shri  S.K.  Debnath,  the  District

Registrar,  South  24  Parganas,  in  respect

whereof  a  charge-sheet  has  been  submitted

against  the  appellant  herein  alleging  the

commission of offences under Sections 471/420

IPC.  Both  the  purchasers  claimed  to  be  in

undisturbed possession of the lands forming

the  subject  matter  of  their  respective

Conveyances.  

3.  The  controversy  relating  to  the  complaint

filed  by  the  District  Registrar,  South  24

Parganas,  is  with  regard  to  the  identical

registration details and the fact that the sale

deed of the respondent No.1 was not traceable

in  the  records  of  the  office  of  the

complainant. Claiming the deed of the appellant

herein  to  have  been  forged  and  wrongfully

placed  in  Volume  75  of  1989  in  Index  I,

2

maintained in the District Registrar’s office,

Alipore,  the  respondent  No.1  filed  a  writ

petition  before  the  High  Court,  inter  alia,

alleging that his Deed, which was the genuine

deed,  had  been  removed  from  the  records  and

replaced with the forged deed of the appellant

herein.  He  therefore,  prayed  for  a  direction

upon  the  concerned  respondents,  and,  in

particular, the respondent No.2, to remove the

appellant’s  deed  from  the  records  and  to

restore his deed in its place. The other relief

sought for by the respondent No.1 herein was

for a direction upon the respondent No.4, the

Officer  in-Charge,  Alipore  Police  Station,

South 24 Parganas, to cause a thorough inquiry

on the basis of the First Information Report

lodged  by  the  District  Registrar,  South  24

Parganas, and to proceed against the culprits

in accordance with the law.

4.  The learned  Single Judge who heard the

writ  petition  took  note  of  the  fact  that

action had been taken on the basis of the

3

complaint  made  by  the  District  Registrar,

South  24  Parganas  and  that  Alipore  Police

Station Case No.110 dated 27.5.2006 had been

instituted under Sections 467/468/471/420 and

120-B  IPC.  It  was  also  noted  that  further

investigation  into  the  complaint  was  being

conducted.

5.In  that  view  of  the  matter,  the  learned

Single  Judge  held  that  since  the

investigation  was  on,  no further order was

required to be passed on the writ petition

and disposed of the same.

6.Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single

Judge, the respondent herein filed a Mandamus

Appeal  (F.M.A.  No.816  of  2006),  which  was

heard  and  disposed  of on 9.11.2006. Taking

note of the case of the respondent No.1 that

he had come to learn from the proposed buyer

that his sale deed was not traceable in the

concerned Volume Register maintained in the

4

Registration  Office  and  that  another  sale

deed pertaining to a totally separate plot of

land with the identical registration details

was in the records, the High Court felt that

the learned Single Judge ought not to have

rejected  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the

respondent  No.1  only  on  the  ground  that  a

criminal case is pending. Accordingly, while

disposing  of  the  appeal the Division Bench

set  aside  the  order  of  the  learned  Single

Judge  and  directed  the  District  Registrar,

South 24 Parganas, to conduct an enquiry and

if  it  appeared  that  the  deed  of  the

respondent  No.1  herein  was  a  genuine

document, to place the copy of the same at

the appropriate place of the Book Volume.  It

was also observed that in the event the Deed

of the respondent No.1 was not found to be

genuine,  the  respondent  No.2  would  be

required to take appropriate action against

the said respondent.  

5

7.The  special  leave  petition  has  been  filed

against the said order of the Division Bench

of the Calcutta High Court disposing of the

writ  appeal  of  the  respondent  No.1.   It

appears that in terms of the order of the

Division Bench of the High Court the District

Registrar,  fixed  12th January,  2007,  for

hearing but the said hearing was adjourned to

31st January,  2007,  on  the  ground  of  the

appellant’s  illness.   In  between  on  11th

January,  2007,  the  present  Special  Leave

Petition was filed.

8.From the records it appears that the enquiry

was held on 31st January, 2007, as scheduled

in the absence of the appellant herein and

the District Registrar came to a finding that

the  deed  produced  by  the  respondent  No.1,

Arun  Bhattacharya,  was  genuine.   However,

according to the appellant the said order or

finding was not communicated to him.

6

9.Meanwhile,  on  8th March,  2007,  when  the

Special  Leave  Petition  was  taken  up  for

preliminary hearing, this Court issued notice

and also stayed the directions of the High

Court to keep a copy of the document which

was found to be genuine in the appropriate

place of the Book Volume.

10.On 6th September, 2007, a charge-sheet was

submitted  against  the  appellant  in  Alipore

Police Station Case No.110 of 2006, which had

been registered on the complaint of Shri S.K.

Debnath,  District  Registrar,  South  24

Parganas, alleging the commission of offences

by the appellant under Sections 471/420 IPC.

11.Appearing  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  Pradip

Ghosh, learned senior counsel, questioned the

propriety of the order passed by the Division

Bench of the High Court on several grounds.

It was firstly urged that the Division Bench

of the High Court erred in directing the same

7

officer, who had lodged the complaint against

the  appellant,  to  conduct the enquiry into

the genuineness of the two sale deeds.  Mr.

Ghosh submitted that asking the same officer,

who had already formed an opinion regarding

the appellant’s guilt, to conduct the enquiry

as to whether the appellant’s sale Deed was

genuine or not, could prejudice the outcome

of the enquiry as the judgment of the said

officer could be clouded by bias against the

appellant.   It  was  submitted  that  the

judgment of the High Court and the directions

contained therein were heavily loaded against

the appellant and to his severe prejudice.  

12.It was also submitted that the bias of the

District  Judge  came  through  strongly  on

account  of  the  fact  that  despite  the  High

Court’s  directions  to  consider  the

genuineness of both the sale deeds executed

in  favour  of  respondent  No.1  and  the

appellant,  a  decision  was  rendered  by  the

8

said  officer  only  with  regard  to  the

genuineness  of  the  sale  deed  of  the

respondent No.1.  It was submitted that, in

fact, the enquiry directed to be conducted,

was confined only to the genuineness of the

respondent  No.1’s  sale  deed,  without  going

into  the  genuineness  of  the  appellant’s

document also.

13.It was urged that an error on the part of

the office of respondent No.2 in dealing with

the two Sale Deeds could not be discounted

and it was, therefore, absolutely necessary

for the respondent No.2 to have gone into the

genuineness of the appellant’s sale Deed as

well  before  arriving  at  a  finding  as  to

whether any fraud or forgery had at all been

committed.

14.Mr. Ghosh urged that on 2nd June, 2005, some

miscreants  had  tresspassed  into  the

appellant’s property and had demolished the

9

rooms erected thereupon by the appellant.  A

written complaint was lodged by the appellant

on 3rd June, 2005, before the Inspector-in-

Charge, Sonarpur Police Station on the basis

whereof Sonarpur P.S. Case No. 218 dated 3rd

June,  2005,  was  registered  under  Sections

147/148/149/427/506 IPC and that during the

investigation,  the  Investigating  Officer

seized  certain  articles  from  the  place  of

occurrence to which one Dipankar Dey was a

seizure witness.  On 16th September, 2005, the

said  Mr.  Dipankar  Dey,  in  his  alleged

capacity as the Constituted Attorney of one

Shrimati  Anjali  Ghosh,  daughter  of  the

appellant’s  vendor,  filed  a  suit  for

declaration  and  permanent  injunction,  being

Title  Suit  No.  141  of  2005,  against  the

appellant  before  the  learned  Civil  Judge

(Junior Division) 2nd Court at Baruipur, in

respect of the plot of land acquired by the

appellant by virtue of the sale deed executed

in his favour by Sayaram Basu, together with

10

an application for temporary injunction under

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. The said application

for temporary injunction was rejected by the

learned Civil Judge but the suit is pending

disposal before the said Court.    

15.On 3rd March, 2006, the said Dipankar Dey

having failed to obtain an interim order in

his suit, made an application on 3rd March,

2006,  to  the  Inspector  General  of

Registration,  Revenue  Department,  alleging

that the registration of the appellant’s sale

deed  had  been  effected  in  a  forged  and

fraudulent manner.  Mr. Ghosh submitted that

though the title suit filed by Shri Dipankar

Dey  stood  dismissed,  the writ petition was

thereafter  filed  despite  the  order  of  the

civil court.  Mr. Ghosh submitted that such

an  enquiry  as  directed  by  the  Writ  Court,

which had the effect of by passing the decree

11

of  the  civil  court  was,  entirely  without

jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

16.Mr. Ghosh concluded on the note that on the

strength  of  the  two  Conveyances  both  the

appellant,  as  well  as the respondent, have

been  in  undisturbed  possession  of  the

properties  conveyed  to  them  by  their

respective  deeds.  Therefore,  the  dispute

which  has  been  raised  only  requires

correction  by  the  allotment of a different

number  to  one  of  the  two  documents,

particularly  when  the  suit  for  declaration

which  had  been  filed  by  the  said  Dipankar

Dey,  on  behalf  of  the  daughter  of  the

appellant’s  vendor,  was  dismissed  and  no

further steps were taken in respect thereof.

17.The specific case made out on behalf of the

respondent No.1 was that the Sale Deed of the

respondent  No.1  was  the document which had

been  registered  before  the  District

Registrar, South 24 Parganas, on 14th March,

12

1989, and had been numbered as Deed No. 3203

of 1989 and recorded in Book No.1, Volume No.

75  at  pages  167-174  and  that  any  other

document  which  purported  to  have  the  same

registration particulars had to be a forged

and/or  fabricated  document  which  had  been

fraudulently inserted in the records of the

District Registrar in place of the Deed of

the  respondent  No.1.   A  complaint  had,

therefore,  been  made  to  the  District

Registrar to hold an enquiry into the matter

and thereafter to place the document of the

respondent  No.1  in  the  concerned  Book  and

Volume  maintained  under  Section  51  of  the

Registration Act, 1908.

18.Reference  was  also  made  to  the  affidavit

affirmed by the District Registrar, South 24

Parganas, the respondent No.3 herein, wherein

it  has  been  mentioned  that  an  enquiry  was

commenced  by  him  pursuant to the direction

given by the High Court in its order dated 9th

November,  2006.   During  the  course  of  the

13

enquiry,  the  appellant  had  been  asked  to

produce  his  original  document,  but  neither

did he appear on the date fixed (12.1.2007)

nor did he produce the original Sale Deed.

Only  a  prayer  was  made  by  his  learned

advocate to adjourn the hearing.  It was, in

fact, adjourned to 31st January, 2007. On the

said date, although, the respondent No.1 was

present, the appellant again remained absent

and his advocate merely informed the District

Registrar that a Special Leave Petition had

been  filed  before  this  Court  against  the

order  of  the  High  Court  directing  him  to

conduct the enquiry.  However, on a careful

examination  of  the  Deed  produced  by  the

Respondent No.1 and upon verification of the

relevant  office  records,  the  District

Registrar  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the

Deed produced by the respondent No.1,bearing

No. 3203 of 1989, executed and registered in

his favour by Shri Manindranath Ghosal, was

genuine.

14

19.Mr.  Dhruv  Mehta,  learned  advocate,  who

appeared for the respondent No.1 pointed out

from  the  report  of  the  District  Registrar

that he had taken due note of the stay order

passed by this Court in this Civil Appeal in

which  the  District  Registrar  was  also

directed to proceed with the enquiry.

20.Reference  was  also  made  to  the  affidavit

filed  on  behalf  of  the  Officer-in-Charge,

Alipore Police Station, wherein it had been

mentioned  that  during  the  course  of

investigation  it  was  noticed  that  the

Register  Volume-I  is  accessible  to  the

members  of  public  for  the  purpose  of

searching  for  information  in  respect  of

properties.  In the affidavit, it was also

mentioned  that  any  person  with  malafide

intention  could  replace  a  document  in  the

said Register, if he wanted to.

15

21.Mr.  Mehta  also  urged  that  although  the

Registration Act is silent as to whether the

District Registrar can conduct an enquiry of

the  nature  undertaken  in the instant case,

there can be no bar to such an enquiry being

conducted on the orders of the High Court, if

the same was a fact-finding enquiry.  It was

urged that the High Court, in exercise of its

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution,

was fully competent to order such an enquiry

to be conducted to enable the Court to arrive

at  a  proper  finding  with  regard  to  the

dispute.   Mr.  Mehta  submitted  that  the

enquiry conducted by the District Registrar

on  the  direction  given  by  the  High  Court

could not be challenged on the ground that

the Registration Act did not provide for such

an enquiry to be undertaken.

22.Mr.  Tara  Chand  Sharma,  learned  advocate,

appearing for the State of West Bengal and

its  officials,  supported  the  submissions

16

advanced on behalf of the respondent No.1 and

urged  that  despite  having  been  given  an

opportunity  to  prove  that his document was

genuine and that some mistake may have taken

place  in  numbering  of  the  two  Deeds  and

recording  their  registration  in  Book  No.1,

Volume  No.75,  the  appellant  avoided  the

enquiry  for  reasons  best  known  to  him  and

even  after  appearing  before  the  District

Registrar through his learned advocate,  he

ultimately  chose  not  to  avail  of  such

opportunity  and  filed  the  present  Civil

Appeal instead. It was urged that it was no

longer open to the appellant to claim that

his Deed had been rightly numbered as Deed

No. 3203 of 1989.

23.Having carefully considered the submissions

made on behalf of the respective parties and

the materials on record, we are inclined to

agree  with  Mr.  Mehta  that  the  enquiry

conducted by the District Registrar under the

17

directions of the High Court in exercise of

its  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  of  the

Constitution cannot be called into question

on the ground that the Registration Act did

not provide for such enquiry to be conducted

by the said officer.  We are, therefore, not

inclined to interfere with the finding of the

District  Registrar  that  the  Sale  Deed

executed in favour of the respondent No.1 by

Shri Manindranath Ghosal had been correctly

numbered  as  Deed  No.  3203  of  1989  and

correctly entered in Book No.1, Volume No.75

and that in terms of the order passed by the

High Court a copy of the same is required to

be kept in the said Book-Volume.  To that

extent, there is no reason to interfere with

the directions and order passed by the High

Court.

24.We  are  also  not  inclined  to  accept  Mr.

Ghosh’s submission that since the suit filed

by  Shri  Dipankar  Dey  on  behalf  of  the

18

daughter of the appellant’s  vendor had been

dismissed for default, no further direction

could have been given by the Writ Court to

conduct  an  enquiry  into the genuineness of

the  appellant’s  Deed  in  view  of  the

provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure.   Though, it may be said

that the rights of the parties in the suit in

regard to the land forming the subject matter

of the appellant’s Sale Deed cannot be gone

into  any  further,  the question relating to

the genuineness of the Sale Deed executed and

registered in the appellant’s favour remains

to  be  decided  as  the  same  had  not  been

decided  either  in  the  suit  or  before  any

other forum.  It is probably with that object

in mind that both the High Court and this

Court  had  directed  the enquiry to continue

while  restraining  the  respondent  No.1  from

acting  on  the  findings  in  the  enquiry  to

place  a  copy  of  the  Sale  Deed  of  the

respondent No.1 in the relevant place of Book

19

No.1,  Volume  No.75,  in  the  office  of  the

District Registrar, South 24 Parganas.

25.However,  there  is  another  angle  to  the

matter, which appears to have been overlooked

both by the District Registrar as well as by

the  High  Court.   During  the  enquiry,  on

account of the failure of the appellant to

produce  his  original  document  before  the

District  Registrar,  the  status  of  his

document was not decided, although, there was

a  direction  by  the  High  Court  to  consider

both  the  documents.   A  finding  should,

therefore, have been arrived at either by the

District  Registrar  or  the  High  Court

regarding the genuineness of the appellant’s

document.  On such count we are inclined to

agree with Mr. Ghosh that the genuineness of

the  appellant’s  Deed  should also have been

examined.  We also agree with Mr. Ghosh that

since the complaint had been lodged by the

District  Registrar  concerned  against  the

20

appellant, the said officer should not have

been  entrusted  by  the  High  Court  with  the

enquiry, since he had already dealt with the

matter and had arrived at the conclusion that

a prima facie case had been made out against

the appellant.

26.We, therefore, allow the appeal in part to

the extent indicated hereinbelow:

(a) Without disturbing the findings of the District Registrar with regard to the genuineness  of  the  Sale  Deed  of  the respondent  No.1,  we  direct  the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal, to conduct a separate enquiry into the matter, with reference to the genuineness  of  the  appellant’s document,  and  to  pass  appropriate orders thereupon.   

(b) The  appellant  is  directed  to  appear before  the  Inspector  General  of Registration on 20th October, 2008, at 11 a.m. for the purpose of the enquiry. In  the  event  the  appellant  does  not

21

appear before the said Authority on the aforesaid date, the enquiry should be deemed to be closed, but this will not prevent the appellant from seeking his remedy, if any, before any other forum.

(c) If  the  Inspector  General  of Registration is satisfied that even the appellant’s  Sale Deed is genuine and some  mistake  in  numbering  may  have occurred  in the office of the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, he shall take necessary steps to have the error corrected so that both the Sale Deeds are  placed  in  the  Book/Volume maintained  in  the  office  of  the District  Registrar.  If,  however,  he arrives  at  a  finding  that  the appellant’s  Sale Deed does not appear to  be  genuine,   he  shall  close  the enquiry  and  direct  the  District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, to take such action as indicated in the order of the High Court.

27.  There will be no order as to costs.       

22

………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

New Delhi Dated: 24.9.2008

23