1. At issue, in this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the legality and validity of instructions dt. Oct. 21/22, 1982 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, debarring Sub-Registrars from registering the sale or lease deeds in respect of the properties pertaining to religious places and Deras; orders dt. March 14, 1983 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Patiala declining to register the lease-deed presented by the petitioners and the order dt. June 1,1984, of the Registrar, Patiala (Annexure P-4), dismissing the petitioners appeal against the orders of the Sub-Registrar.

2. A broad brush backdrop will help; to delineate the contours of forensic controversy:--

3. Surinder Singh, Petitioners 2, took on perpetual lease land measuring 4 Bighas belonging to Shivala Mandir, situate in village Badungar, Tehsil and District Patiala vide a registered lease deed dt. July 15, 1982. This land represented 1/3rd share of Khasra No. 456-min measuring 12 Biswas. It was stipulated in the lease deed that the lessee was entitled to sub let the property on the same terms and conditions on which lease was granted to him. Petitioners 2 entered into an agreement for sub-leasing of property mentioned above to petitioners 1 for 96 years vide agreement dt. March 14, 1983. This lease deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Patiala, respondent 3 by the petitioners, who declined to register the document and passed the following order:--

"The document was presented before me today. On scrutiny it was found out that it is a lease-deed. This land originally belonged to Dera which is now being transferred on a sub-lease. As per instructions of the Government, the registration of the properties pertaining to the Deras and other institutions has been stopped. Therefore, the registration of the lease-deed is declined. A copy of the order and the orginal lease-deed be returned to the applicant."

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal against this order of the Sub-Registrar before the Registrar, Patiala, under S. 71 of the Registration Act (for short 'the Act').

5. On enquiry, the petitioners learnt that after receipt of some orders from the State Government the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, issued instructions dt. Oct. 21/22, 1982 (Annexure P-3) directing the Sub-Registrars in the District not to register sale deeds or lease deeds in respect of the properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions, as these were being sold or leased out by the Managers and money received was being misappropriated by them.

6. The Registrar dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dt. June 1, 1984 on the ground that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, as also the State Government had issued clear cut instructions that since the Pujaris/Mohtmims of the religious institutions such as Deras, Thakar Dwaras and Samadhis, etc., were indulging in illegal disposal of lands attached to these institutions in violation of the Farman-e-Shahi and the terms and conditions on which Muafis were granted to these institutions, Sub-Registrars and Joint Registrars should not register such sale deeds and property transactions. These orders were issued to protect the properties of the Deras from being illegally transferred and were in public interest. They were binding on the Registrars and Sub-Registrars. The Sub-Registrar was fully justified in refusing to register the lease deed presented before him. He confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

7. Still undaunted, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition.

8. The petitioners challenge the orders of the Sub-Registrar and Registrar and the instructions issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner inter alia on the grounds:--

(i) That the Registrar had no authority in law to issue instructions directing the Sub-Registrars not to effect the registration of a document pertaining to properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions like Deras and Temples, etc. and

(ii) The Sub-Registrar was under a legal obligation to effect the registration of the documents presented to him and he cannot refuse their registration on the basis of the instructions (Annexure P-3).

9. The respondents contested the writ petition and filed a written statement wherein it has been averred that the registration of the lease-deed was refused in accordance with the instructions of the Government. It was pleaded that the Registrar had issued that instructions to the effect that no lease-deed pertaining to religious/charitable institutions be registered. The Registrar, respondent No. 2, was fully competent to issue such instructions. It was contended that the impugned orders were legal, valid and within jurisdiction. Along with the written statement they appended two documents Annexures R-1 and R-2. Annexure R-1 is described as Farman-e-Shahi dt. April 18, 1921. This document inter alia prohibits the Mahants from selling or mortgaging the lands belonging to Deras. Vide Annexure R-2 directions had been issued by the State Government to the Deputy Commissioners of the State that they should take necessary steps to ensure proper management of land and property attached to religious institutions and issue instructions to the Sub-Registrars and Joint Registrars not to allow registration of sale/lease or property transactions of lands which were granted to the Deras, Thakar Dwaras and Samadhis etc.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Mahant had already leased out 4 Bighas of land belonging to Shivala Mandir to petitioners No. 1, that lease deed had been registered in 1982. Annexure R-1 only prohibits mortgage or sale of the property belonging to the Deras, etc., it did not place any restrictions on the leasing out of these properties. The Act did not authorise the State Government or the Registrar to issue instructions to the Sub-Registrars not to register sale deeds or lease deeds of any properties. There is no provision in the Act expressly conferring such powers. They could not be even impliedly derived from the provisions of the statute. The Act was a complete Code. It enumerates specific reasons for which the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar may refuse to register a document. Under S. 69 of the Act, Inspector General has been authorised to exercise general superintendence over all the Registrars functioning in the State and to make rules consistent with the Act providing for the matters enumerated therein. The State Government had not been invested with any powers of superintendence or control over the Sub-Registrars, Registrars or the Inspector General of Registration. It cannot issue any instructions to these officers. The powers of the Sub-Registrars cannot be curtailed by any instructions issued by the State Government. The Sub-Registrar by declining to register the lease-deed presented by the petitioners had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The Registrar while dismissing the appeal also committed the same error.

11. On the other hand Shri H. L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that unlimited powers have been given to the Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of a document. These powers are not hedged in or circumscribed by any limitation. S. 74 posited that in case the requirements of the law for the time being in force had not been complied with on the part of the person presenting a document for registration, the authorities were entitled to refuse to register that document. The Ruler of Patiala State, who was a sovereign, issued Farman-e-Shahi dt. Oct. 26, 1943, laying down that the lands or shops belonging to Deras, Gurdwaras, Temples and Mosques leased for more than three years shall stand annulled and in future the managers of such institutions shall before leasing out the land or giving on lease a shop must seek the permission Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla. This was the command of the sovereign which was law as defined in Art. 13 of the Constitution, so by a law validly passed and promulgated by a sovereign the managers of religious/charitable institutions have been debarred from leasing out properties of these institutions for any period of time without the previous permission of the State Government. After the formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (popularly called and hereinafter referred to as PEPSU) this law continued to remain in force and it governed the properties of these religious institutions. After the merger of the Pepsu with Punjab this law still continued to operate. So that State Government could, on the authority of this law, direct the Registrars/Sub-Registrars not to register any lease deeds relating to the properties of the religious/charitable institutions. Mr. Sibal has placed on record a certified copy of the abovementioned Farman-e-Shahi.

12. It is apparent from the perusal of the various provisions of the Act that the powers of Sub-Registrars and Registrars have been clearly defined and demarcated by the Act. Clear provisions have been made authorising the Sub-Registrar to refuse to register documents if they are not properly executed or presented or the subject-matter of the document lay beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar as the case may be. The Sub-Registrar can refuse to register a document under S. 21 of the Act, if it does not contain the description of the immoveable property sufficient to identify the same; under S. 23 if the document is not presented within four months of the date of its execution; under S. 28 if the document is presented for registration in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose Sub-District the whole or some portion of the property is not situated; under S. 32 if the document to be registered is not presented by the person executing it or claiming under the same or by representative or assign of such person; under S. 35 if the Sub-Registrar is not satisfied about the identity of the person/persons they represented themselves to be, or such a person or persons do not admit the execution of the document, or a person or such a persons appear to be minor or lunatic or idiot or if the person by whom the document purports to be executed is dead and his representatives or assigns deny its execution. There is no provision in the Act requiring or authorising the Sub-Registrar to refuse to register a document because of any instructions issued by the State Government or the Registrar, restraining or prohibiting him from registering a document. Under S. 69 the Inspector General of Registrat6ion has been invested with the general superintendence over all the Registrars functioning in the State and to make Rules consitent with the Act,. providing for the matters mentioned therein. The Sub-Registrar and the Registrar are the creation of the statute and they draw their authority therefrom. Their powers and duties are covered by the Act. Their statutory functions could not be curtailed by any executive instructions issued by the State Government or the Registrar. Instructions issued by the State Government and Registrar, Patiala, were wholly without jurisdiction and were not binding on the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar did not reject the prayer of the petitioners for registering document because any one or more of the conditions specified in any of the sections of the Act mentioned above had not been fulfilled or violated. He had declined to register the lease deed only because instructions issued by the respondent had debarred him from registering the lease deeds relating to the properties of the religious institutions. The Sub-Registrar, or the Registrar did not refer to or rely on this order dt. Oct. 26, 1943. Even in the written statement there is no reference to this order. It was only during the course of arguments that Mr. Sibal produced a copy of this order. So it is not necessary to decided whether this order is law as envisaged by Art. 13 of the Constitution. Even if for the sake of argument it be accepted that this order was a Farman-e-Shahi and was law as contemplated by Art. 13 of the Constitution, it was not enforceable, or workable. With the merger of the State of Patiala in the Pepsu, the office of Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla came to be abolished. There is no institution like Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla in the present democratic Punjab, as such the State Government has not authorised any officer to perform the functions of Sardar Sahib Deorhi Mualla. So, there is no officer from whom the manager of a religious property can seek permission. Furthermore the order dt. Oct. 26, 1943 did not prohibit the Sub-Registrar from registering lease-deeds pertaining to lands of religious or charitable institutions. It had only cast a duty on the manager of a religious/charitable institution to seek such a permission. It has not been mentioned in the order as to what will be the effect of non-compliance thereof.

13. Provisions of S. 74 of the Act are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. These provisions are attracted only in those cases where the Sub-Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground that the person by whom it purports to be executed had denied its execution. Only in dealing with such documents, the Registrar can, under S. 74, enquire into the question whether the requirement of law for the time being in force has been complied with.

14. Reliance of Shri Sibal on Munshi v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1944 Lah 349 is misplaced. The provisions of S. 17 of the Punjab Land Alienation Act fell for construction therein. S. 17 of the Punjab Land Alienation Act is to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act or in Rules made under S. 16 of that Act, an instrument which contravenes the provisions of the Punjab Land Alienation Act shall not be admitted to registration. Mr. Sibal has not been able to bring to my notice any statutory provision debarring the Sub-Registrar from registering a document, i.e., the lease deed of a property of a religious institution. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Nalla Goundan v. Krishnaswami Naicker, AIR 1945 Mad 465, interpreting Clause (b) of S. 74 of the Act observed that such requirements did not included the provisions of S. 145(2) of the Madras Land Act and non-compliance with that section is not a valid ground on which registration of a document can be refused under S. 74 of the Act.

15. The State Government had no power or authority to issue instructions or directions to the authorities functioning under the Act restraining or restricting them from registering documents pertaining to the transfer of rights in immoveable properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions. Nor the Registrar had any authority to issue instructions Annexure P-3. The Sub-Registrar had refused to register the lease deed only because of these instructions. The Registrar had also dismissed the appeal only because he was of the view that the Sub-Registrar was bound to follow the instructions issued by the State Government.

16. For the foregoing reasons I allow the writ petition, set aside the orders of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, Patiala, as also the instructions issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Registrars, Patiala, annexures P-2, P-4, and P 3, respectively. I further direct respondent No. 3 to register the lease deed presented before him by the petitioners if there is no other legal impediment in the way of the petitioners. There will, however, be no orders as to costs.

17. Petition allowed.