Shanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 2471 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Shanti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P.(C) No. 3377 of 2024
Shanti Devi, W/o- Jivan Das, Aged about 68 years, resident of Village-
Pipradih, P.O. Gumo, P.S.-Jainagar, District-Koderma, Jharkhand.
                                                        ... ... Petitioner
                               Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Koderma, P.O., P.S.
& District-Koderma.
3. The Sub-Registrar, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District-Koderma.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S.
& District-Hazaribag.
5. The Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. & District-Hazaribag.
6. The Circle Officer, Chandwara, P.O. & P.S.-Chandwara, District-
Koderma.                                               ... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner              : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
                                  Mr. Rajiv Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                                  Akata Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent-State       : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
                                 Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
                                    --------

Order No. 6/Dated: 7th February 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

"A. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Order or direction on the respondents to vacate the restriction as contained in Letter no.59 dated 08.02.2021 (Annexure-06) on registration of sale deed executed and submitted on 17.10.1996 (Referred Document No.214/16) taking reference of Memo no.2853/go dated 09.11.2011, whereby, a blanket order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma prohibiting the registration of land which comes under Gair Majaruwa nature, however, in similar case in W.P.(C) No.4621 of 2021 the Hon'ble High Court has passed order on 01.09.2023, stating therein, that such orders passed by the Deputy commissioner, Koderma, shall not come in way to the registration of sale deeds and shall not be refused by referring to this memo if the other conditions are satisfied. B. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Order or direction on the respondent No.03 the Sub-Registrar, Koderma to register the sale deed which was way back executed and submitted on 17.10.1996 (Referred Document No.214/16) before the respondent No.05 the Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag by the vendor in favour of petitioner but the same could not

been registered due to lack of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 23,919.00, for which a Certificate case was initiated against the petitioner and after bifurcation of area among the Districts Hazaribag and Koderma in the year 2007 the matter was referred to the respondent No.03 the Sub-Registrar, Koderma for collection of outstanding stamp duty and registration of documents of the petitioner, and the petitioner vide Challan No.246 dated 3.02.2016 paid the stamp duty amounting to Rs.24,000.00, however, the sale deed has not been registered by the Respondent No.03 till date in spite of the several representations.

AND/OR C. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/s order/s, direction/s as may deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2. The brief facts of the case are that after payment of consideration amount and completion of all the formalities, a sale deed was executed on 17.10.1996 and was submitted for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh which has been refused by respondent no.5- District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh due to the insufficient stamp duty, however, a receiving of the same has been issued to the petitioner. It is stated that the office of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Hazaribagh vide notice dated 16.02.1997 informed the petitioner to appear before the undersigned on 17.03.1997 to deposit the outstanding stamp duty amounting to Rs.23,919.00 for registration of sale deed, however, due to paucity of fund, the petitioner could not deposit the above stated stamp duty. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Hazaribagh filed a Certificate case before the office of the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh against the petitioner vide Certificate Case No.110/98- 99 vide Memo No.72 dated 25.07.1998 and vide notice dated 28.08.1998 the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh issued notice against the petitioner for payment of outstanding stamp duty amounting to Rs.23,919.00.

Further fact reveals that the petitioner after delimitation among the Districts Hazaribagh and Koderma in the year 2007, the matter was referred to the respondent no.3-Sub-Registrar, Koderma for collection of outstanding stamp duty and registration of documents of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner vide Challan No.246 dated 03.02.2016 paid the stamp duty amounting to Rs.24,000.00 which is evident from the Letter

No.85 dated 21.04.2016 which was issued by the respondent no.3-District Sub-Registrar, Koderma to the District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh (I/C).

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after depositing the outstanding stamp duty amounting to Rs.24,000.00 before the respondent no.3, the sale deed dated 17.10.1996 (Referred Document No.214/16) was not registered by the respondents. Finding no way, the husband of the petitioner, namely, Jivan Ravidas filed a complaint before the Jan Shikayat Koshang, Hazaribag upon which the respondent no.5 sent a letter to the respondent no.3 vide Letter No.895 dated 23.12.2020 stating therein, that the District Sub-Registrar, Koderma is the competent authority to register the document. Again, the petitioner approached before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for redressal of her grievance, upon which the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma vide Letter No.16 dated 06.01.2021 sent a letter to the respondent no.3 and directed to examine the case of the petitioner and do the needful as per law. The petitioner herself vide application dated 27.10.2023 and letter dated 07.11.2023 requested the respondents for registration of sale deed dated 17.10.1996 (Referred Document No.214/16) with respect to an area of 1.20 Acre appertaining to Plot No. 6670/6 of Khata No.175/1 situated at Mauza-Chandwara which was purchased by the petitioner way back in the year 1996.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 4089 of 2013 and the said judgment has also been relied upon by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in another case being W.P.(C) No. 4621 of 2021. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed in view of the order passed in above referred judgments.

5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. SC-II fairly submits that the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 4089 of 2013 has been upheld up till Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, similar direction may be made in ths reagard.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid fact that the issue involved in the instant writ application is squarely covered by the above referred case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent no.5 to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner long before within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order and pursuant thereto; the respondent no.6 will do the needful for initiating the Jamabandi in her favour and issue rent receipts within a further period of six weeks.

7. Needless to say, the impugned Memo No. 2853 dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma shall not come in the way to the registration of sale deed and shall not be refused by referring to this memo if the other conditions are satisfied.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of.

9. Pending, I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit AFR/NAFR