- (1.) THESE are four writ peti tions. Writ petitions Nos. 2605 and 2606 of 1967 have been filed with the prayer for quashing the order passed by the District Registrar of Meerut dated 16-11-1966.
(2.) IN writ petition No. 2605 on the application of the Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, purported to have been moved under Rule 220 of the Registration Manual, the District Registrar Meerut held that certain notifications issued by the State Government under Section 78 of Act No. 16 of 1908 as ultra vires and in operative. He has directed that the Sub-Registrar Ghaziabad was only entitled to realise the copying charges from Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and not the amount of Rs. 50, 011/- (as demanded by the Sub-Registrar) for the Registration of the mortgage deed present ed by the Company for registration. He further directed that after deducting a sum of Rs. 100/- the balance of the amount that is Rs. 49, 911/- be refunded to the Company. In Writ Petition No. 2606 simi lar order has been passed on the applica tion of Modi Industries Limited, Modina-gar, Meerut who wanted to get registration of a supplementary trust deed of Rs. 50 laks. The District Registrar held the noti fications to be ultra vires and inoperative and directed the Department to reafise rea sonable copying charges which he assessed to Rs. 100/- and further directed that the balance of the amount that is Rs. 49, 959/-be refunded to Modi Industries Limited.
(3.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated thus: - That Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, Modinagar, Meerut and Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar, Meerut presented two documents separately for registration before Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, each one of the documents namely the mortgage deed and the supplementary trust deed were valued at Rs. 50/- Lakhs. The Sub-Registrar de manded Rs. 50, 011/- as fee for registration from Modi Spinning and Weaving Com pany Limited for registration of the mort gage deed and demanded a sum of Rupees 50, 059/- from Modi Industries Limited as fee for registration of the supplementary trust deed. Against the demands so made the two Companies made representations separately to the District Registrar through the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, purporting to be under Sections 32, 78, 79 and 80 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Arti cles 19 and 265 and Schedule VII, List 2 Entry No. 66 of the Constitution of India. They submitted in their representations that the demand made by the Sub-Registrar was illegal and ultra vires and irrecoverable. These companies, however, to secure the registration of the documents requested the District Registrar to record the protest and issue directions to the Sub-Registrar to tha effect. The District Registrar Meerut on 22-2-1966 directed the Sub-Registrar Ghazia bad that the document presented by the Companies may be registered after realis ing the full fees in accordance with the Rules in force. He also observed that it was not possible either for the Sub-Regis trar or the District Registrar to remit any portion of the fees realised in accordance with the Rules in force. Thereafter the documents, as it appears were presented before the Sub-Registrar by the Companies aforesaid and the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad realised the amount of Rs. 50, 011/- for the registration of the mortgage deed from Modi Spinning and Weaving Company Limited and Rs. 50, 059/- from Modi Indus tries Limited. These two companies by another application moved the District Re gistrar in the matter under Rule 220 of the Registration Manual, for refund of fees al leged to have been charged in excess by the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad. The Companies in the application moved before the District Registrar raised the plea that the so-called fees prescribed by the State Government for the registration of the documents is in fact not a fee but in its very nature amounts to a tax and the notification issued by the State Government prescribing the said fees is ultra vires and inoperative. They had set out following two reasons for challeng ing the same. "1. That the fee is not deposited in a separate head or account, but is merged in the general revenue of the State. It is not solely used for the maintenance of the Registration Department, but goes into a consolidated fund, which is utilized for other various Governmental functions. 2. That there is no reasonable correla tion between the fee levied and the main tenance cost and the administration of the Registration Department. The purpose of the Registration Act has no relation to the paying capacity of an individual and as such it does not levy fees on the basis of the capacity of an individual to pay." The companies, therefore, prayed by a separate application that although the documents have been registered on payment of fees on protest as demanded by the Sub-Registrar Ghaziabad but they are en titled to the refund of the amount of fee as it was not a fee but a tax imposed on them. The District Registrar in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1966 relying upon the case, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Chief Commr., Delhi, reported in AIR 1964 Punj 492, held that the notifications on the basis of which the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad demand ed and received payment of the said fees as Registration fees from the Companies was ultra vires and inoperative. He also held that the department was only entitled to realise only the reasonable copying charges in each of these cases and assessed it at Rs. WO/-and ordered the payment of the balance of the amount to the Companies. Against this order of the District Registrar the State of U. P. has preferred these two writ petitions. ;