Judgment:
R.K. Patra, J.
1. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the District Sub-Registrar, Cut-tack (opposite party No. 2) to effect registration of the document of sale deed prosecuted before him.
2. Case of the petitioner is that with a view to sell a vacant piece of land under the Urban Agglomeration of Cuttack, he served statutory notice on the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Cuttack (opposite party No. 3) on 23-6-1992 as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land Ceiling Act'). The said competent authority initially declined to grant acknowledgment, of receipt of the statutory notice which compelled the petitioner to file O.J.C. No. 9316 of 1992 in this Court. This Court by order dated 8-3-1998 disposed of the matter with a direction that the petitioner would approach the competent authority on 10-2-1993 during office hours and hand over to him a duplicate copy of the statutory notice. Since the competent authority did riot exercise its option to purchase the said land on behalf of the State Government within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the statutory notice, he presented the sale deed for its registration on 2-3-1993 along with the acknowledgment receipt of the statutory notice before the District Sub-Registrar. Cuttack. The Registering Authority however, did not, register the sale deed although the same was free from any defect.
3. The District Sub-Registrar-opposite party No. 8 has filed counter-affidavit. He has averred that although the prospective vendor had attached the statutory notice with the sale deed, he could not take any further steps in view of the communication made by the competent authority as per Annexure-A/2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the registering authority has acted illegally in withholding registration of the document despite the fact that the document is free from any defect and the petitioner had complied with the provisions of Section 26 of the Land Ceiling Act by serving statutory notice on the competent authority. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgments in J.D. Pathak v. V. B. Barot, AIR 1982 Gu) 317. Kailashv. Sub-Registrar, AIR 1985 Maclh Pra 12 and Smt. Kishni Devi v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 Raj 24.
5. The jurisdiction of the registering authority under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the effect of Section 26 of the Land Ceiling Act came up for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in J.D. Pathak's case (AIR 1982 GuJ 317) (supra). S. B. Majumdar, J. (as his Lordship then was) after analysing the relevant provision of the Registration Act and the Land Ceiling Act held that it is only under two contingencies that a registering officer can refuse to accept a document presented before him for registration. They are : (1) under Section 20(1) of the Registration Act in the case of a defective document and (2) under Section 71(2) in the case of a document which bears the endorsement of competent Sub-Registrar that registration is refused. In all other cases he can either register the document or pass an order refusing registration. There is no provision in the Registration Act which authorises him to refuse registration if the requirements of the Act are satisfied. Section 26 of the Land Ceiling Act engrafts a provision of statutory pre-emption-cum-acquisition in favour of the competent authority and for that purpose the prospective seller of vacant land within ceiling limit governed by the Ceiling Act has to give written notice of intended transfer to the competent authority, in order to see that this scheme of statutory pre-emption-cum-acquisition envisaged under Section 86 is not frustrated, it is provided under Section 28 of the Land Ceiling Act that if a document attracts Section 28(a), the registering officer is to keep it on pending file and after being satisfied that notice under Section 26(1) of' the Land Ceiling Aet has been given by the transferor and in the case of sale after waiting for a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such notice by the competent authority, the Registrar can proceed to deal with the document for registration in accordance with law as per the provisions of the Registration Act. This is the only embargo which gets engrafted on powers of registering officer under the Registration Act on account of interaction of sections 26 and 28 of the Land Ceiling Act with relevant provisions of the Registration Act.
6. There being no dispute with regard to the aforesaid exposition of law and keeping that in view, lei us turn to the lads of the case. There is no dispute thai the petitioner as a prospective vendor served statutory notice on the competent authority-opposite party No. 3 on 23-6-1992 as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Land Ceiling Act. It die! not exercise its option to purchase the land within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Sub section (2) of Section 86 of the Land Ceiling Act provides that if the competent authority does not exercise its option within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of notice, it shall be presumed that it has no intention to purchase the land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful for such person to transfer the land to whomsoever he likes. After receipt of the petitioner's statutory notice as the competent authority did not indicate its option within a period of 30 days, an inference of presumption has to as drawn that it has no intention to purchase the land on behalf of the State Government and it shall be lawful on the part of I he petitioner to transfer the land to whomsoever lie likes. May it be stated that the District Sub-Registrar-opposite party No. 2 in his counter affidavit has taken the stand that in view of the communication made by the competent authority as per Annexure-A/2, lie has withheld registration of the docu- ment. We have perused Annexure-A/2. It does not contain anything except that it is an extract of Section 28 of the Land Ceiling Act. The District Sub-Registrar also docs not contend in his counter affidavit that the document presented before him by the petitioner is defective under Section 20(1) of the Registration Act, or that the petitioner is required to comply with any other provision of law. For the reasons aforesaid, the District Sub-Registrar is patently in error in withholding the registration of the sale deed presented by the petitioner before him.
7. In the result, we allow the writ appli-cation and direct opposite party No. 2 to return the sale deed presented by the petitioner (Annexure-1) before him after registering the same. Shri Behra says that the petitioner is willing to comply with the other formalities, if required for the purpose. He may, therefore, appear before opposite party No. 2 on 23 8-1999 to receive further in-struction in the matter.
8. There would be no order as to costs.
P.K. Patra, J.
9. I agree.