There is no savings/deeming provision in the law that takes into account the fate of the unregistered ATS in question, made before May 1, 2017. In deciding the fate of these ATS, the law could have been considered to have been registered in accordance with the law (subject to the payment of a fee to the relevant Sub-Registrar) or provided that atTs executed before 1 May 2017 were now registered within a specified period, as provided for the registration of ongoing projects in accordance with section 3 of the Act. The Hon`ble Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and expressed a respectful rejection of the Gurbachan Singh V. Raghubir Singh judgment, where there is a conflict over the legal situation, whether it is possible to order legal action for a given performance on the basis of an unregistered sales agreement under section 17(1A) and section 49 of the Registration Act. The conflicts between two single Bench judgments were settled by the court…