Jharkhand High Court
Bhim Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 W.P. (C) No.1204 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1204 of 2018
Bhim Munda, aged about 66 years, son of late Shiv Charan Munda,
resident of Opposite Nath Hospital, P.O.- Kadru, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi
5. The Circle Officer, Argora, Ranchi
6. A.G. Office Employees Co-Operative House Construction
Society, having its registered office at New A.G. Cooperative
Colony, Kadru, P.O.-Kadru, & P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
7. Dr. Nishi Kumari, w/o Birendra Prakash, r/o Qtr. No.23/R/3,
Harmu Housing Colony, P.O.-Kadru, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
8. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate
: Mrs. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
: Ms. Surabhi, AC to AAG-II
: Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
: Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India with a prayer inter alia for setting aside the
order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 which has
been mentioned at serial no. D of the prayer portion of this writ
petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner does not press the prayer B and C of this writ petition.
4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a
member of Schedule Tribe and is ex-army personnel. He
purchased a land which was acquired by the Government prior to
his purchase from his vendor in the year 1961 without knowing
that such acquisition made by the Government of 2 ½ khata of
land which roughly comes to 3.75 decimals though in paragraph
no.6 of this writ petition, erroneously, it has been mentioned that
the area of the land purchased is 10 decimals. Before purchase of
the said land, the petitioner sought necessary permission from the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as per Section 46 of Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act. The petitioner came to learn by the said order dated
02.02.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi
that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi annulled
the registered sale deed of the petitioner. The petitioner only after
that came to know that the land in question along with other
lands were acquired for the AG Office Employees Co-operative
House Construction Society in the year 1961 and on the basis of
the application made by the District Sub-Registrar for annulment
of the registered sale deed of the petitioner by the respondent no.7
over which the petitioner has constructed his house for an area
admeasuring 10 decimals, recommendation was made for
carrying the proceeding of annulment.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having been passed
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the
same is bad in law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner also came to know that upon
acquisition of the land by the Governor of Bihar for the AG Office
Employees for the housing scheme vide notification dated
03.02.1961, transfer was made between Government of Bihar and
AG Office Employees Cooperative House Construction Society
Ltd. in the year 1964 but before that in the year 1963, land was
transferred in the name of late Awadhesh Kumar, the deceased
father of the private respondent no.7. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar under the
Indian Registration Act does not have power to annul a document
which has been registered and the only procedure for annulment
is in terms of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this respect,
learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a
coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3103 of 2020 in the
case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Allied Cases dated 11.01.2024 wherein the
coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Registrar has no
power to annul the registered sale deed and the State Government
cannot by an executive order confer such a power on the Registrar
and submits that it is only the civil court which can cancel/annul
an instrument which has been registered. In this respect, learned
counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr.
vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 15
SCC 207 wherein, it was held that only in a civil court the
cancellation of the registered document can be declared and not
otherwise. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer 'D' as made in
this writ petition be allowed.
6. Learned AAG-II on behalf of the State relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State
Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash
Sindhi Coop. Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. reported in (2013) 5
SCC 427, paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:-
"13. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled
legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the
issuance of a Section 4 notification in respect of the
land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, and
can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in
such a situation is void qua the Government. Any such
encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of
the land in question, that is made after the issuance of
such a notification, would be deemed to be void and
would not be binding on the Government. (Vide Gian
Chand v. Gopala [(1995) 2 SCC 528] , Yadu Nandan
Garg v. State of Rajasthan [(1996) 1 SCC 334 : AIR
1996 SC 520] , Jaipur Development Authority v.
Mahavir Housing Coop. Society [(1996) 11 SCC 229]
, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain
[(1997) 1 SCC 35] , Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi [(2008) 9 SCC 177] , Har Narain v. Mam
Chand [(2010) 13 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 793]
and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer
[(2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT
(2012) 12 SC 260] .)" (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that there is no quarrel that by the time the
petitioner purchased the land from his vendor, the land was
already acquired in the name of Governor of Bihar hence,
obviously the vendor of the petitioner did not have any title to
pass on to the petitioner and the sale deed is void qua the
Government and a void document need not be declared as such
and hence even it is assumed that the Deputy Commissioner in
capacity of the registrar has not the power to cancel the sale deed
concerned still, such an order is an innocuous and inconsequential
order because otherwise also, the petitioner cannot have any right,
title and interest over the land in question by virtue of the sale
deed concerned executed in his favour; as undisputedly, as his
vendor was also not having any right, title and interest over the
said land; certainly no right, title and interest in respect of the land
in question has accrued to the petitioner.
7. It is next submitted by learned AAG-II that the facts of this case
having different from the facts of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod
Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra)
wherein the sale deed which was cancelled by the Registrar was
not void ab-initio as in this case hence, the ratio of that case is not
applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is submitted that this
writ petition being without any merit be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 adopts the entire
argument of the State Counsel and besides, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that the contention of the
petitioner that the cancellation order of the Deputy Commissioner
was passed behind his back is out and out false as it is evident
from the order no.7 dated 06.12.2017 in Fraudulent Registration
Case No. 13/2017-18 itself that the petitioner appeared in that case
through his Advocate. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondent no.7 that in this writ petition the deed by
which the father of the respondent no.7 acquired title by way of
transfer in the year 1963 cannot be questioned as the same
involves disputed question of facts hence, the prayer nos. B & C as
made in the writ petition by the petitioner challenging the said
transfer of the case land in favour of late Awadesh Kumar, the
deceased father of the respondent no.7 cannot be questioned more
so because as the petitioner admittedly has purchased only 3.75
decimals of land or 2 ½ khata of land, they have no locus standi to
challenge the acquisition of 34 decimals of land by the father of
the respondent no. 7. It is then submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondent no.7 that assuming for the sake of argument
that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar has no jurisdiction
to pass the cancellation order of the sale deed but in view of the
fact that the transfer of the land subsequent to acquisition of the
land by the Governor of Bihar undisputedly, having not conferred
any right, title and interest upon the petitioner in respect of the
land in question; still setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 of
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case
No. 13/2017-18, will certainly cannot confer any right, title and
interest in respect of the case land in favour of the petitioner. It is
then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7
that as the vendor of the petitioner himself filed a petition for
restoration of the possession of the land in question in their favour
vide S.A.R. Case No.11/984 of 1974 hence, the vendor of the
petitioner cannot claim to be in possession of the land in question.
More so because though the said S.A.R. Case No. 11/984 of 1974
was allowed but on the appeal vide S.A.R. Appeal No.6R 15/1981-
82 having been allowed no right, title and interest remains with
the vendor of the petitioner and the said appellate order passed in
S.A.R. Appeal No. 6R 15/1981-82 has attained finality as the same
has not yet been challenged. Hence, it is submitted that this writ
petition being without any merit be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 submits that the
respondent no.8 came into picture only after the petitioner filed
I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 with a prayer for allowing the petitioner to
incorporate an additional prayer to keep in abeyance, the further
proceeding in connection with U.C. Case No. 19 of 2018 and
operation, implementation and execution of the order dated
12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi
Municipal Corporation. It is next submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent no.8 that the construction made by the
petitioner over the land in question is an unauthorized
construction and the respondent no.7 lodged a complaint with the
respondent no.8- Ranchi Municipal Corporation, basing upon
which U.C. Case No.19 of 2018 was registered and after hearing
the parties vide order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal
Commissioner, Ranchi in exercise of the powers conferred in
paragraph no. 17 of Jharkhand Building bye-laws, building plan
has been cancelled under the power conferred under Section 436
of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. It is then submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondent no.8 that by adopting the
arguments of learned AAG-II that as undisputedly before
purchase of the land by the petitioner from his vendor in the year
2002, his vendor was not having any title as the land was
undisputedly acquired much before that in the year 1961 hence,
the title of the case land has been vested upon the Government of
Bihar and subsequently to the A.G. Office Employees Cooperative
House Construction Society. It is then submitted that thus, the
said order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal
Commissioner, Ranchi in U.C. Case No. 19 of 2018 need not be
interfered with. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the respondent no.8 that the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in U.C.
Case No.19 of 2018 by the respondent no.8 is an appealable order
and the provision of appeal has been provided under Section 442
of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, hence, otherwise also, there
being an alternative remedy and the disputed questions of facts
having being involved in this case, this writ petition ought not to
be allowed. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent
to mention here that the undisputed facts remains that by the time
the petitioner purchased the land from his vendor in the year 2002
his vendor was not having any title over the land in question as
the same having been acquired much prior in the year 1961 by the
government. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop.
Housing Society (supra), the sale transaction in favour of the
petitioner is void qua the Government. Unlike the facts of the case
of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of
Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra) this is not a case of
impersonation of the executant of the sale deed rather the sale
deed executed in favour of the petitioner was a void one as the
vendor of the petitioner undisputedly was not having any title on
the date of execution of such sale deed. Under such circumstances,
no right, title and interest has accrued to the petitioner by virtue
of such sale deed; so the transaction of sale between the petitioner
and his vendor; was a void transaction, which is not required
under the law be declared as such being an ab-initio void
transaction. So under such circumstances, the consequence of the
cancellation of the said sale deed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi is only of academic interest because otherwise also, the
same does not confer any right, title and interest upon the
petitioner.
11. In view of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The
State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra) wherein the
coordinate Bench has held that the Registrar has no power to
annul the sale deed no. 12269 of the year 2002 certainly, the order
dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in
Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 annulling the sale
deed no.12269 of the year 2002 is bad in law and is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside.
12. But so far the prayer made in Serial no. A of the writ petition
contending therein that the petitioner was not noticed before
passing the order dated 02.02.2018 in the said Fraudulent
Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 is concerned, as submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 by drawing attention
of this Court to the order sheet of the said proceeding, it appears
that the petitioner appeared through his Advocate in the said
Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 hence, this being
the disputed question of facts, this Court do not intend to accept
the contention of the petitioner that he was never noticed before
passing of the said order dated 02.02.2018.
13. So far as the I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 is concerned, as this Court has
already held that even without the order of the Deputy
Commissioner passed in the said Fraudulent Registration Case
No. 13/2017-18 dated 02.02.2018 otherwise also, the sale deed
no.12269 of 2002 being a void one as the vendor was not having
any title at the time of executing the sale deed certainly, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the respondent no.8
as prayed for in I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 hence, I.A. No. 4750 of 2018
being without any merit is dismissed.
14. The petitioner if so advised may avail appropriate remedy; if
any available.
15. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly and consequently
the interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, I.A. No. 10813 of 2023
stands disposed of being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
