Natural justice and registration law: lack of notice can invalidate cancellation orders, while Mumbai registration was not void for Bihar property.

An adverse order cancelling sale deeds and directing dispossession was liable to be recalled where it was passed without notice to the affected applicants, because prior hearing is an element of natural justice protected by Article 14. The text also explains that registration of sale deeds for immovable property situated in Bihar at the Sub-Registrar's office in Mumbai was not invalid merely on that ground, as the Registration Act, 1908 was read with the constitutional distribution of legislative power and the then-operative Maharashtra registration scheme. It further notes that the later deletion of the relevant provisions confirmed that such prior Mumbai registrations were not void solely because the property lay in Bihar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order cancelling the sale deeds and directing dispossession could be recalled for having been passed without notice to the applicants; (ii) Whether the registration of sale deeds relating to immovable property situated in Bihar at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai was valid under the Registration Act, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the order cancelling the sale deeds and directing dispossession could be recalled for having been passed without notice to the applicants.

Analysis: An adverse order affecting the applicants' rights in the subject property was passed without making them parties or affording them an opportunity of hearing. The requirement of prior notice and fair hearing is an integral part of natural justice and is protected by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the earlier order cancelled sale deeds executed in favour of the applicants and directed dispossession, the procedural defect went to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: The order dated 30.11.2011 was liable to be recalled on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the registration of sale deeds relating to immovable property situated in Bihar at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mumbai was valid under the Registration Act, 1908.

Analysis: The Court read Sections 28 and 30 of the Registration Act, 1908, together with the constitutional scheme under Articles 246(2) and 254 of the Constitution of India. It held that the State amendment in Bihar operated only within Bihar and did not create extra-territorial invalidity for registrations lawfully effected in Maharashtra, where Section 30(2) remained in force at the relevant time. Section 67 also showed that the scheme of the Act contemplated inter-district and inter-State forwarding of registered documents, and the later Central amendment deleting Section 30(2) and Section 67 confirmed that the pre-existing Mumbai registration was not void merely because the property was in Bihar.

Conclusion: The registration at Mumbai could not be cancelled solely on the ground that the property was situated in Bihar.

Final Conclusion: The earlier cancellation order was recalled, the recall application was allowed in part, and the parties were left free to pursue any remaining challenge to the underlying transaction on other available grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse order passed without notice to affected parties is liable to be recalled for breach of natural justice, and a registration effected by a competent Registrar under the applicable law in that State cannot be invalidated merely because the property lies outside that State where the State amendment has no extra-territorial effect.

---