Registrar cannot impose a blanket lock on land registration beyond the scope of a civil court’s status quo order.

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Jagdishpur (Respondent No. 3), to "re-open the lock" (remove the restriction) on the sale of their land located in Mauza Nagarpalika, Jagdishpur

The Sub-Registrar had restricted transactions on the land purportedly based on a status quo order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Sub-Judge 1st, Jagdishpur, in Title Suit No. 205 of 2021

The petitioners, who claim they are not parties to the said Title Suit, argued that the Sub-Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by applying a blanket ban on their land

Prior to the writ, the petitioners filed a miscellaneous appeal before the Collector-cum-Registrar, Bhojpur, which remained pending without action

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable for the reliefs prayed for while an alternative statutory remedy is pending

2. Whether the Court should direct the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the pending miscellaneous case

The court distinguished between the "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The court applied the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedies, noting that while a writ can be entertained, it may be dismissed if a statutory appeal is available and already pursued

The court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct a quasi-judicial authority (Collector-cum-Registrar) to perform its duty within a fixed timeline to prevent prejudice to a party's property rights

The Court observed that the petitioners’ grievance stemmed from the administrative inaction of the Collector-cum-Registrar in failing to hear their appeal against the Sub-Registrar’s order

The State argued that the writ was misconceived and non-maintainable

The Court clarified that while the writ might be summarily dismissed on grounds of maintainability, the petitioners’ situation—suffering due to the "callous approach" of the Collector while needing to sell land for a daughter's marriage—required judicial intervention

Instead of adjudicating on the merits of the property lock, the Court found it appropriate to allow the petitioners to pursue their existing statutory remedy, provided that the authority is compelled to act decisively and promptly

The Court directed the Collector-cum-Registrar, Bhojpur at Ara, to dispose of the appeal within six weeks from the date of the order, ensuring notice and due opportunity to all concerned parties, and to pass a "final, positive and determinative order." All interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly