Rajeshwar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1173 Jhar

                                                   1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(C) No. 4332 of 2018
            Rajeshwar Prasad                                       ..... Petitioner
                                            Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand
            2. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla
            3. The District Sub-Registrar, Gumla                   ..... Respondents
                                              -----

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

            For the Petitioner:         Mr. Arun Kumar
            For the State:              Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C (L&C)-I
                                              -----


05/09.03.2021     The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the

respondent No.3 to register the sale-deed presented by the petitioner for the

land appertaining to Khata No. 276, Khewat No. 3/3, Plot No. 1655, Mouza-

Umra, Thana No. 07, P.S-Palkot, District-Gumla, measuring an area of 0.65½

acre [hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'] in favour of Suhru Sahu, which

has been returned back without assigning any reason.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land is recorded

in the Revisonal Survey Record of Rights in the name of Ram Pratap Lal Sahu

and Hari Shankar Lal Sahu as 'Gairmazurwa Majhihas' and the petitioner is the

grandson of the recorded Raiyat. The said land came in the share of the

petitioner after family partition and accordingly, the same was mutated in his

name and thereafter he is regularly paying the rent to the government and rent

receipt is being issued in his name. It is further submitted that the petitioner

executed a sale-deed of the said land in favour of Suhru Sahu S/o Karam Dayal

Sahu and after completing all the legal formalities, presented the same on

26.02.2018 before the respondent No.3 for its registration. However, the

respondent No.3 returned the same to the petitioner without assigning any

reason. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in the case

of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand [W.P.(C) No.

6184 of 2014] by a Bench of this Court, the Department of Revenue,

Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand has issued

notification dated 19.02.2016 whereby instruction has been given for adopting

the procedure to be followed for registering the instruments presented before

the cornered registering officer. In compliance of the said notification, a report

was called from the Circle Officer, Gumla with respect to the said land. The

Circle Officer, Gumla vide letter No. 47 dated 03.02.2018, submitted his report

stating that the nature of the said land is raiyati and the Jamabandi of the said

land was running in the name of the petitioner and as such there was no bar to

sell the 'Gair Majurwa Majhihas' land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that if an instrument has been duly executed and sufficiently stamped

and there is no legal impediment or formal defect in registering the same, the

registering authority cannot refuse to register it. The registering authority

cannot make roving enquiry regarding the nature of right and title of the vendor

as well as the subject matter of the sale-deed presented for registration.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits

that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts while filing the present writ

petition. The said sale-deed was presented for registration before the

respondent No.3 on 26.02.2018. However, the same was taken back by the

petitioner by filing an application dated 28.02.2018 stating inter alia that the

purchaser had not brought his ATM card and as such there was no question of

registration of the same. Though the nature of the said land has been

mentioned as Raiyati in the letter dated 03.02.2018 issued by the Circle Officer,

Palkot (Gumla), yet the nature of the said land is recorded as 'Gair Majurwa' in

the original Khatiyan. It is further submitted that the Department of Revenue,

Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand has issued a

notification as contained in memo No. 1132 dated 26.08.2015 to the effect that

there would be no registration of government land as the same is against the

public policy.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while controverting the said argument

of the respondent-State, submits that though the said sale-deed was returned

back to the petitioner on 28.02.2018, yet on the very next date, the same was

again presented for registration, but the respondent No.3 returned the same

with verbal instruction to get permission of the Additional Collector, Gumla over

the same. Pursuant to the said instruction, the petitioner filed an application

before the Additional Collector, Gumla seeking permission to get the said sale-

deed registered, who vide letter dated 09.04.2018, issued instruction to the

respondent No.3 for taking action as per law to register the same. Thereafter,

the petitioner again presented the said sale-deed for its registration, however,

the respondent No.3 again returned the same verbally saying that the nature of

the said land is 'Gair Mazurwa'.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials

available on record. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondent

No.3 to register the said sale-deed contending that the said land is transferable,

though its nature has been mentioned as 'Gair Majurwa Majhihas'. On the other

hand, the respondent-State has claimed that the said land is recorded in the

Revisional Survey Record of Rights as 'Gair Majurwa' and in view of the

notification dated 26.08.2015, the same is a non-transferable land.

7. Be that as it may.

8. In the present case, no formal order has been passed by the respondent

No.3 under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act, 1908') rejecting the said sale-deed presented by the petitioner. On

perusal of the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908, it would be evident that

if the District Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document, he is required to

pass an order of refusal by recording the reasons for the same in the relevant

book with an endorsement on the document that the registration has been

refused. Section 72 of the Act, 1908 also provides a forum of appeal before the

Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document

for its registration.

9. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, without entering into

the merit of the claim of the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of

giving liberty to the petitioner to present the said sale-deed before the

respondent No.3, who shall either admit the same for its registration forthwith

or refuse to register the same by passing an appropriate order in terms with the

provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908.

10. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid

direction.

Satish/-                                                        (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)