1. Heard Mr. Arpit Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Alkesh N. Shah, learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The petition is taken out by the petitioner, seeking below mentioned relief and direction:
"8(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to return the registered document dated 30.11.2010 bearing registration No.14151 executed in favour of the petitioner with respect to land bearing Revenue survey No.599/1 T.P. Scheme No.19, Final Plot No.189 paiki admeasuring 2518 sq.meters situated at Mouje Manjalpur, Taluka & District- Vadodara;"
3. The petitioner claims to be the person in whose favour. One Mr. Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Panchal has allegedly executed a sale deed by presenting himself as constituted attorney of one Mr. Ambalal Bapubhai Parmar and Smt.Nathiben Bapubhai Parmar. The document in question is said to have been executed on 30.11.2010. The document was presented for registration on the same day, i.e. 30.11.2010.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities did not take any action on the said document. The said document is neither registered nor the registration is refused. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to prefer any appeal or file any suit against the action of the respondent authority under Section 72 or Section 77 of the Registration Act. Therefore, the petitioner has filed present petition.
5. Against the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP has submitted that the document appears to be forged. Learned AGP has submitted that the document is allegedly executed on 30.11.2010 by one Mr. Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Panchal , who has claimed to be the constituted attorney of Mr. Ambalal Bapubhai Parmar and Smt. Nathiben Bapubhai Parmar.
6. However, it has come to the notice that said Mr.Ambalal died on 18.5.2007 and said Smt. Nathiben died on 11.3.1992 whereas, the power of attorney was granted in favour of said Mr. Dahyabhai Ramjibhai Panchal on 3.9.1984 and the deed has been executed on 15.11.2010. The Death Certificates are placed on record at page 170 and at page 171 respectively. It is claimed that a photocopy of the power of attorney, which is placed at page 19 on record, does not reflect any date. It is also claimed by learned AGP that on the strength of the said power of attorney, the constituted attorney even filed a suit in 1997. Learned AGP has also submitted that another suit, wherein the disputes with regard to the property in question, power of attorney, etc. are involved, is pending before the learned trial Court. Learned AGP has submitted that in this background, the competent authority is examining the veracity and genuineness of the document in question.
5. In light of the submission made by the learned AGP and particularly in view of serious doubt raised by the authority that there is a possibility that the document in question is forged, the document and the matter appear that no order has been passed by the competent authority until the matter appears to be under consideration, scrutiny and examination by the competent authority. In that view of the matter, it does not appear to be proper or justified at this stage - until the matter is under examination
- to grant any order as prayed for by the petitioner. In view of this, it would not be justified or proper to direct the respondent authority to pass any order and/or to bind the competent authority at this stage to any time limit and/or to direct the authority to register the document and/or return the document to the petitioner.
6. In view of this, the request as prayed for by the petitioner does not deserve to be granted at this stage and the petition does not deserve to be entertained and therefore, the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) Bharat* Top