@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hobble Mr. Justice B.S. Patil
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent-District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District, Jayanagar, Bangalore to hear and dispose of the appeal bearing R.A.NO. 3/1992-99, expeditiously. The petitioner claims that be had entered into an agreement of sale with Late Smt Devika Rani for purchase of a portion of land in Tatguni Estate and that an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid as advance sale consideration. According to the petitioner, a supplementary agreement was entered into on 21.09.1991 followed by the execution of sale deed dated 16.03.1993 in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance amount. The sale deed was presented to the 3rd respondent-Sub Registrar, Kengeri Town, Bangalore on 07.03.1992 for registration. Stat Devika Rani failed to appear before the 3rd respondent, hence, the sale deed was not registered. This made the petitioner to file a suit on O.S. No. 122/1992 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, against the Deputy Registrar seeking declaration of their rights under the sale deed dated 16.02.1992.
2. In the meanwhile, on 30.07.1992, the Sub Registrar, Kengeri, issued notice to the petitioner refusing registration of the sale deed on the ground that Smt. Devika Rani did not turn up to confirm the execution of sale deed. Against this communication issued on 30.07.1992, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ''D'', the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Registrar-2nd respondent herein, in R.A.NO. 3/1992-93. As this appeal is not disposed of, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal
3. It is relevant to notice at this stage that Smt, Devika Rani along with Ms. Mary Joyce Poonacha had fifed W.P. No. 26677/1993 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in R.A.NO. 3/1992-93 before the 2nd respondent-District Registrar and also certain orders passed by him on 25.05.1993 and 22.06.1993, She had also sought for a restraint order against 2nd respondent from proceeding further in the appeal. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 23.09.1993. Aggrieved by the same Smt. Devika Rani along with MS. Mary Joyce Poonacha preferred W.A. No. 2667/1993, The writ appeal also came to be dismissed on 22.06.1994. Aggrieved by the said order passed in the writ appeal, MB. Mary Joyce Poonacha praferred Special Leave Petition, which later on came to be numbered as Civil Appeal Ho. 3094/1995. The said Civil Appeal was allowed by order dated 19.01.1995 holding that as the execution of the alleged sale deed and also the passing of consideration was denied and when the dispute was pending trial in the civil suit filed by the alleged vendee, the appropriate course for the Registrar was to stay off his hands and direst the plaintiff to obtain appropriate direction or decree from the Civil Court The Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition and the writ appeal and issued a direction to the District Registrar not to proceed further with the hearing of the matter till the Civil Suit was disposed of, Further, the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of the order (i.e. 19.01.1995). The Apex Court further observed that ''depending upon the result in the suit, the District Registrar shall take further action''.
4. It now transpires that the suit filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed and the regular appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit came to be allowed and the suit has been decreed on 07.10.2006. It is also to be noted that the respondent No. 4 herein Me. Mary Joyce Poonacha has challenged the Judgment and decree passed in the regular appeal before this Court in R.S.A.No. 70/2007. The said appeal is pending admission sod there is no interim order of stay, It is in this background the petitioner contends that the District Registrar ought to have proceeded with the hearing of the appeal and disposed of the same in terms of the observation made and direction issued by the Apex Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and also the Government Reader submit that an important development has taken place after the disposal of the civil appeal by the Apex Court in that the entire property which is the subject matter of litigation in this writ petition and the alleged safe deed executed by late Mr. Devika Rani has been acquired by the State Government by enacting special Act, viz, Roerich & Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the said acquisition of the special enactment was challenged by the present petitioner and the challenge came to be repelled by confirming the validity of the acquisition and the enactment passed. It is, urged, in this background that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought seeking registration of the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Smt, Devika Rani It is not necessary for this Court to examine the entitlement of the petitioner for the registration of the sale deed.
6. The matter is pending before the District Registrar. The Apex Court has issued a direction to the District Registrar to consider the matter, once the proceedings in the suit were disposed of, keeping in mind the result of the said proceedings. The proceedings in the suit have culminated in a decree in R.A.No. 33/2002. Though the second appeal is filed against that decree, there is no interim order of stay. Therefore, there is no impediment to the District Registrar to proceed in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the pending appeal R.A.No. (33/2000/)(3/92-93) filed by the petitioner. It is also open to the respondents to bring to the notice of the Registrar the subsequent events leading to the passing of enactment in acquiring the land in question and the dismissal of the challenge made to such acquisition by the petitioner. The Registrar is required to take note of all the developments and then pass appropriate ordeRs. The Registrar shall issue notice to all the parties concerned and thereafter dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order.
