Police request cannot create attachment of immovable property; registering officer needs a valid court or competent authority order.

Section 102 CrPC empowers seizure of certain property by police, but it does not authorise attachment of immovable property; attachment under Sections 83 to 86 must be ordered by a court, not created from a police request. The Registration Act permits a registering officer to act on copies of orders or decrees issued by a competent authority, but it does not allow the Sub Registrar to record an attachment merely on the basis of police communication. A police request cannot itself create a valid encumbrance or burden on immovable property, so any endorsement made without a lawful attachment order is unauthorised and illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sub Registrar had authority to treat a police request as an attachment order and make an endorsement of attachment in the encumbrance records, and whether the impugned endorsement could be sustained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis: Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a police officer to seize certain property, but it does not confer a power to attach immovable property. The provisions governing attachment of immovable property are found in Sections 83 to 86 of the Code, and attachment thereunder is an order to be made by the Court, not by the police. Chapter VII-A of the Code was held inapplicable to ordinary local offences, and therefore could not support the impugned action. Under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer acts upon copies of orders or decrees issued by the competent authority; the statute does not authorise the Sub Registrar to create or record an attachment on his own merely on the basis of a police communication. An encumbrance presupposes a legally effective burden or charge, and a mere request by the investigating officer could not amount to such an attachment or encumbrance.

Conclusion: The endorsement of attachment was unauthorised and illegal, and the Sub Registrar had no power to make it on the basis of the police letter.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the endorsement of attachment was directed to be removed, without prejudice to any valid order of attachment that may be passed by a competent authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of express statutory authority, a police request cannot be treated as an order of attachment of immovable property, and a registering officer cannot record such an attachment without a valid order from the competent court or authority.

---