NAREN CHANDRA NASKARversusARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS.

                                  [2008] 13 S.C.R. 969
      )



_,
 ~
                           NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR                                A
                                         v
                          ARUN BHATTACHARYA & ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 5820 of 2008)
                               SEPTEMBER 24, 2008
      -1                                                                    . B
               [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

                   Deeds and Documents: Genuineness of Sale Deed -
             Registration of two Sale Deeds in respect of different proper-
            .ties - Both the Vendees claiming to be in peaceful posses-        c
             sion of their respective properties-:- Registration details of both
             Deeds identical - Initiation of criminal case against one of
             the vendees (appellant) at the instance of District Registrar-
             Another vendee (respondent) filing writ petition alleging forg-
             ery - Division Bench of High Court directing to hold enquiry
                                                                                 0
           · as to genuineness of both the Sale Deeds - The District Reg-
             istrar holding enquiry only in respect of Deed of the -respon-
             dent and holding it genuine - On appeal; held:._Direetion by
             High court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the ·
              Constitution to hold enquiry cannot be questioned - However,
             enquiry by the officer at whose instance criminal proceedings E ·
             were initiated is not_ correct - Examination of genuineness of ·,
             the document of appellant as well as respondent was required ·
             - Finding as to genuineness of document of respondent· is
             confirmed - Direction to Inspector General of Registration to
             conduct a separate enquiry as to ascertain genuineness of F
             appellant's document - If found genuine, mistake in number-
             ing the documents be rectified - Otherwise ac{/Qn to be taken
             accordingly- Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226:::. Code
             of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 23 r. 1 - Registration Act, 1908
             - Enquiry into genuineness of Sale Deed - Administrative G
             Law-Bias.
                 Two Sale Deeds in respect of two different plots of
            land were registered respectively by appellant as well as
                                          969                                  H


 -t
    970      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 13 S. C.R.


A respondent No. 1. However, both the Sale Deeds were
  having identical registratiOii details. Both appellant as well
  as respondent No. 1 stated to be in undisturbed posses-
  sion of their respective lands. A criminal.case u/s 471/420
  IPC against the appellant was initiated at the instance of
B District Registrar in view of the above and because the             . '.    )--·
  sale Deed of respondent No. 1 was not traceable in the
  records. of the office.·
          · Respondent No; 1 also filed a writ petition alleging
  . that the Deed of the appellant was forged. He sought di-
e rection to the authorities concerned to remove the Deed
     of the appellant from the records and restore its Deed in
     its place and to ll_r.oceed against the culprits in accordance
  . with.law. Single Judge of High Court disposed of the same
     holding that since investigation in the case was on, no
D further order was required. In intra-court appeal, Division
     Bench of High Court directed the District Registrar to con-
   . duct an enquiry as to genuineness of the respective docu-
     ments of the appellant and respondent No. 1. Conse-
     quently, on holding of enquiry, document of respondent
E .. No. 1 was found genuine. ·
          . In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
     in absence of power under Registration Act to the Officer
     concerned, he could not have conducted the enquiry; that
    .since the suit filed on behalf of daughter of appellant's
F vendor against him claiming title of the property in ques-
   . tio"n was dismissed, no futher direction could have been
     given by the writ court to conduct enquiry into the genu-
     ineness of appellant's Deed; that the District Registrar · .
     was required to consider genuineness of the documents
G of both the appellant as well as respondent No. 1; and
     that inquiry by the officer, who rriade a complaint against
 ·. the appellant was prejudiced.
          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                              . .j

H         HELD: 1. The enquiry conducted by the District Reg-
)                 NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                  971
                      BHATTACHARYA & ORS.

      istrar under the directions of the High C9urt in exercise A    ,..
      of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can-       ,,..
      not be called into question on the ground that the Regis-
      tration Act did not provide for-such enquiry to be con-
--!   ducted by the of(iCer concerned. Therefore, the finding
      of the District Registrar that the Sale Deed executed in B
      favour of the respondent No.1 had been correctly num-
      bered 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, cannot be interfered        c
      with. To that extent, there is no reason to interfere with '·
      the directions and order passed by the High Court. [Para
      23] [979,F-H; 980,A]
            2. It is also not correct to contend that since the suit
-r    filed on behalf of the daughter of the appellant's vendor D
      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 CPC. Though, it may be
      said that the rights of the parties in the suit with regard to E
      the land forming the subject matter of the appellant's Sale
      Deed cannot be gone into any further, the question relat-
      ing to the genuineness of the Sale Deed executed and
      regis'tered in the appellant's favour remains to be decided
-i    as the same had not been decided either in the suit or F
      before any other forum. [Para 24] [980,B-D]
           3.1 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 de-
      cided, although, there was a direction by the High Court to G
      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. The genuineness of the appellant's Deed should
      also have been examined. [Para 25] [980,F-G]                 H
     972      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 13 S.C.R.


 A       3.2 Since the complaint had been lodged by the Dis-
   trict Registrar concerned, against the appellant, the said of-
   ficer should not have been entrusted by the High Court with
   the enquiry, as he had already dealt with the matter and had
   arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case had been
 B made out against the appellant. [Para 25] [980,H; 981,A]
          4. The findings of the District Registrar with regard
    to the genuineness of the Sale Deed of respondent No.1
    are not disturbed. The Inspector General of Registration,
    is directed to conduct a separate enquiry into the matter,
  C with reference to the genuineness of the appellant's docu-
    ment. In the event the appellant does not appear before
    the said Authority, 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. If the authority
, D concerned is satisfied that even the appellant's Sale Deed
    is genuine and some mistake in numbering seems to have
    occurred in the office of the District Registrar, he shall take
    necessary steps to have the error corrected so that both
    the Sale Deeds are placed in the BookNolume maintained
  E 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, to take such action as indicated in the
    order of the High Court. [Para 26] [981,B-G]
 F        CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5820
     of 2008
        From the final Judgment and Order d.ated 9/11 /2006 of
   the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 816 of 2006
 G with C.A.N. No. 5622 of 2006
          Kr. Ghosh, Abhijeet Chatterjee, P. Mukherjee, Tarun Das
     Sharma, Subodh Kr. Pathak and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for
     the Appellant.
           Dhruv Mehta, Sarla Chandra, Tara Chandra Sharma and
 H
                      NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                    973
    )
                          BHATTACHARYA & ORS.

         Neelam Sharma for the Respondents.                                 A
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              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 B
          Registrar, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, on 14.3.1989,
        • being-Deed No.3203 of 1989 and recorded in Book No.1, Vol-
          ume No. 75, at Pages 167-174, have given rise to Alipore Po-
          lice Station Case No.110 of 2006. The said complaint was filed
          by Shri S.K. Debnath, the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, c
          in respect whereof a charge-sheet has been submitted against
          the appellant herein alleging the co_mmission of offences under
          Sections 471/420 IPC. Both the purchasers_ claimed to Qe in
          undisturbed possession of the lands forming the subject matter
        .ftftheir respective Conveyances.                                    D
                 3. The controversy relatingJo the complaint filed by the
          District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, is with regard to the iden-
          tical 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 75of1989
          in Index I, maintained in the District Registrar's office, AUpore,
          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
                                                                             F
          deed of the appellant herein. He therefore, prayed for a direc-
          tion upon the concerned respondents, and, in particular, the re-
          spondent 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 re-
         spondent No.4, the Officer in-Charge, Alipore Police Station, G
          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 ac-

~
         cordance with the law.
                                                                             H
    974       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13S.C.R.


A          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 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-
8   B IPC. It was also noted that further investigation into the com-
    plaint 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.
c
         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
D learn from the proposed buyer that his sale deed was not trace-
  able in the concerned Volume Register maintained in the Reg-
  istration Office and that another sale deed pertaining to a to-
  tally 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
E respondent No.1 ohlyon the ground that a criminal case is pend-
  ing. Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal the Division
  Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and di-
  rected the District Registrar, South 24 Parganas, to conduct an
  enquiry and if it appeared that the deed of the respondent No.1
F herein was a genuine document, to place the copy of the same
  at the appropriate place of the Book Volume. It was also ob-
  served 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.
G
         7. The special leave petition has been filed against the
   said order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dis-
   posing 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
H
                    NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                      975
)
                 BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

         the said hearing was adjourned to 31st January, 2007, on the        A
         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 iri the absence of the ap-
         pellant herein and the District Registrar came to a finding that    B
         the deed produced by the respondent No.1, Aruri Bhattacharya,
         was genuine. However, according to the appellant the said or-
         der or finding was not communicated to him.

                9. Meanwhile, on 8th March, 2007, when the Special Leave     c
          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 submit- D
           ted against the appellant in Ali pore 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.                                                     E
                1f 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 officer, who had lodged the complaint        F
         against the appellant, to conduct the enquiry into the genuine-
         ness 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       G
         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.                                                   H
    976       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A        12.lt was also submitted that the bias of the District Reg-
  istrar 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 said officer only with
                                                                     '-
B 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 respon-
  dent No.1 's sale deed, without going into the genuineness of - ·
  the appellant's document also.
c       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
D whether any fraud or forgery had at all been committed.
           14. Mr. Ghosh urged that on 2nd June, 2005, some mis-
    creants had tresspassed into the appellant's property and had
    demolished the rooms erected thereupon by the appellant. A
    written complaint was lodged by the appellant on 3rd June,
E   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 Of-
    ficer seized certain articles from the place of occurrence to which   ).-
F   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 ver:idor, filed a suit for declaration and perma-
    nent injunction, being Title Suit No. 141 of 2005, against the
G   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 an application for temporary in-          •
    junction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the
H   Code of Civil Procedure. The said application for temporary
                      NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                       977
     J.
                   BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

           injunction was rejected by the learned Civil Judge butthe suit is A
           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            B
           appellant's sale deed had been effected in a forged and fraudu-
           lent 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,        c
           which had the effect of by passing the decree 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 re-
     '(                                                                    D
           spondent, have been in undisturbed possession of the proper-
           ties 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 E
           appellant's vendor, was dismissed and no further steps were
           taken in respect thereof.
                 17. The specific case made out on behalf of the resp on-
    ...(   dent No.1 was that the Sale Deed of the respondent No.~ was F
           the document which had been registered before the District
           Registrar, South 24 Parganas, on 14th March, 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 par-
                                                                              G
           ticulars had to be a forged and/or fabricated document which
           had been fraudulently inserted in the records of the District Reg-
     ~     istrar 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
                                                                              H
    978      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2008] 13 S.C.R.


A   the respondent No.1 in the concerned Book and Volume main-
    tained 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 com-
B menced by him pursuant to the direction given by the High Court
  in its order dated 9th November; 2006. During the course of the
  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
C prayer was made by his learned advocate to adjourn the hear-
  ing. 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
D 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 verifi-
  cation of the relevant office records, the District Registrar came
  to the conclusion that the Deed produced by the respondent
E No.1,bearing No. 3203 of 1989, executed and registered in his
  favour by Shri Manindranath Ghosal, was genuine.
          19. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned advocate, who appeared
    for the respondent No.1 pointed out from the report of the Dis-
    trict Registrar that he had taken due note of the stay order
F   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 be-
  half of the Officer-in-Charge, Alipore Police Station, wherein it
G 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 docu-
H ment in the said Register, if he wanted to.
                  NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                         979
)              BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

              21. Mr. Mehta also urged that although the Registration Act     A
       is silent as to whether the District Registrar can conduct an en-
    .. quiry 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         B
       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 con-
       ducted by the District Registrar on the direction given by the High
       Court could not be challenged on the ground that the Registra-         c
       tion Act did not provide for such an enquiry to be undertaken.
            22. Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned advocate, appear-
      ing for the State of West Bengal and its officials, supported the
      submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent No.1 and
      urged that despite having been given an opportunity to prove D
      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 E
      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             F
      on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record,
      we are inclined to agree with Mr. Mehta that the enquiry con-
      ducted by the District Registrar under the directions of the High
      Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con-
      stitution cannot be called into question on the ground that the         G
      Registration Act did not provide for such enquitY to be con-
      du.cted 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                 H
    980       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A   No. 3203 of 1989 and correctly ent!=red 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-Vol-
    ume. To that extent, there is no reason to interfere with the di-
    rections and order passed by the High Court.
B        24. We are also not inclined to accept Mr. Ghosh's submis-
  sion that since the suit filed by Shri Dipankar Dey on behalf of the
  daughter of the appellant's vendor had been dismissed for de-
  fault, no further direction could have been given by the Writ Court
  to conduct an enquiry into the genuineness of the appellant's
C 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 par-
  ties 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
D 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 con-
  tinue while restraining the respondent No.1 from acting on the·
E findings in the enquiry to place a copy of the Sale Deed of the
  respondent No.1 in the relevant place of Book 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
F 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 d!rection by the High Court
  to consider both the documents. A finding should, therefore, have
G 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 genuine-
  ness of the appellant's Deed should also have been examined.
  We also agree with Mr. Ghosh that since the complaint had been
H lodged by the District Registrar concerned against the appel-
                            NAREN CHANDRA NASKAR v. ARUN                      981
     ')                  BHATTACHARYA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

                lant, the said officer should not have been entrusted by the High   A
                Court with the enquiry,·s·ince he had already dealt with the mat-
                ter 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:                                              B

                      (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      c
                            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 D
                            a.m. for the purpose of the enquiry. In the event the
                            appellant does not 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. E
                 :,
                      (c)    If th~ 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 .F
                             corrected so that both the Sale Deeds are placed in
                             the BookNolume 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 G
                             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.
                K.K.T.
                                                                     .
                                                          Appeal Partly allowed.    H