Jharkhand High Court
Gyanendra Kumar Singh Son Of Late Shyam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5051 of 2021
1. Gyanendra Kumar Singh son of Late Shyam Bihari Singh,
resident of Sukhdeonagar, Ratu Road, P.O.- Hehal, P.S.-
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi
2. Maya Kejriwal wife of Naresh Kumar Kejriwal, resident of
Hazaribagh Road, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
3. Deepshikha Dhanuka wife of Late Raj Kumar Dhanuka, resident
of Saket Nagar, Kanke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Gonda, District- Ranchi
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Collector, Legal Section, Ranchi
4. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer, Jharkhand and Bihar
(DEO) Circle, Danapur Cantt. Patna
.... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 5059 of 2021
1. Raj Kishore Sahu son of Late Mathura Sahu, resident of New
Nagra Toli, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
2. Rajni Devi wife of Raj Kishore Sahu, resident of New Nagra
Toli, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi
3. Sachidanand Prasad, son of Late Balgovind Prasad
4. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh son of Sachidanand Prasad
5. Sapna Bharti wife of Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
6. Janki Devi wife of Sachidanand Prasad
Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are residents of Balihar Lodge, Tagore
Hill Road, Morabadi, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Bariatu,
District- Ranchi
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Collector, Legal Section, Ranchi
4. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer, Jharkhand and Bihar
(DEO) Circle, Danapur Cantt. Patna
.... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No. 5051 of 2021]
Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
[in W.P.(C) No. 5059 of 2021]
For the State : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
[in both cases]
For the UoI : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kabir, Advocate
[in both cases]
----
Order No. 11 Dated: 19.11.2024
Both these writ petitions have been preferred for
quashing the proceeding initiated under Sections 82 and 83 of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (in short, "the Act, 1908") by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) against the
petitioners and others vide its order dated 09.06.2021 passed in
Fraudulent Registration Case No. 02/2021-22 mentioning inter alia
that the Defence Estate Officer, Jharkhand and Bihar Circle, Danapur,
vide memo no. BIH/DCR/28/2018-19/Court dated 01.06.2021 had
requested the said respondent to initiate a proceeding under the
aforementioned provisions of the Act, 1908 and to annul the sale
deeds said to have been fraudulently executed with respect to the
properties belonging to the Department of Defence, Government of
India appertaining to plot no. 557 measuring an area of 4.46 acres
situated at Rameshwar Lane, Ranchi in pursuance of which, the
notices were issued to the petitioners along with their vendor vide
said order i.e., 09.06.2021 after calling detailed report from the
Circle Officer, Bargain Circle, Ranchi and District Sub Registrar,
Ranchi.
2. These cases were earlier listed before this Court on
03.07.2024 and on the said date, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners of respective writ petitions submitted that
the issue raised in the present writ petitions was already decided by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order/judgment dated
11.01.2024 passed in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(C) No.
3103 of 2020 (Vinod Shankar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Others) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar243 setting aside the
With
proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioners of the different
districts under sections 82 and 83 of the Act, 1908. Learned counsel
further prayed for disposal of the present writ petitions in terms with
the said order/judgment. It was also submitted that another writ
petition being W.P.(C) No. 533 of 2021 (Dr. Anil Kumar Burnwal &
Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others) involving similar issue
was also disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 01.02.2024 in terms with the judgment passed in the case of
Vinod Shankar Jha (supra.).
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
respondents on the said date i.e., 03.07.2024, though did not
dispute the fact that an identical matter was already decided by a
Bench of this Court vide order/judgment dated 11.01.2024 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 3103 of 2020 with other analogous cases, however he
submitted that the State had preferred L.P.A No. 339 of 2024
challenging the said order/judgment.
4. After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated
27.09.2024, directed learned counsel for the respondent-State to
apprise this Court regarding the status of L.P.A No. 339 of 2024.
5. These cases were thereafter listed on 23.10.2024 and on
the said date, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in
respective writ petitions jointly submitted before this Court that the
said L.P.A was still lying defective which suggested lack of
seriousness on the part of the State of Jharkhand in pursing the said
appeal.
6. Considering the said fact, this Court ordered to put up
these cases under the heading for 'Orders' on 19.11.2024 by
With
observing as under: -
"7. It is, however, observed that unless the judgment
dated 11.01.2024 passed in the case of Vinod Shankar
Jha (Supra.) is stayed or set aside by the learned
Division Bench before the next date fixed, this Court may
proceed to dispose of the present writ petitions in terms
with the aforesaid judgment/order passed by the writ
court."
7. Today, i.e on 19.11.2024, the respondent-State failed to
produce any order passed by learned Division Bench in L.P.A No. 339
of 2024 with respect to staying or setting aside the judgment dated
11.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3103 of 2020 and other analogous
cases.
8. I have perused the judgment passed in the case of Vinod
Shankar Jha (supra.) wherein the challenge was made to the
Circular No. 16930 issued by the Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand conferring
jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar to
cancel/annul sale deeds. The Bench finally held that the Registrar
has no power to cancel registered sale deed and the State
Government cannot by an executive order, confer such a power on
the Registrar. Thus, the impugned circular vesting power of
cancellation of sale deed on the Registrar was considered
unsustainable in law and was accordingly set aside. The Bench
further set aside the cases instituted/notices issued/orders passed in
furtherance of the said executive order as well as cancellation orders
of sale deeds by the Registrar, which were under challenge in the
aforesaid writ petitions.
9. Considering that the issue raised in the present cases has
With
already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod
Shankar Jha (supra.) and Dr. Anil Kumar Burnwal (supra.),
the proceeding initiated by the respondent no.2 vide order dated
09.06.2021 in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 22/2021-22 as well
as the notices issued to the petitioners are hereby quashed and set
aside.
10. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh/
With
