Jharkhand High Court

Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                         2025:JHHC:13251-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
        W.P.(C) No. 5088 of 2018
1. Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA), a Company
   incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at
   Old Hazaribagh Road, P.O. Church Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, District
   Ranchi, through its Ex-officio Chairman, Bishop of Chotanagpur, Rt.
   Rev. B. B. Baskey, son of Late Paulus Baskey, aged about 58 years,
   resident of House No. 122, Bishop's Compound, Old H.B. Road,
   P.O. Church Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, District Ranchi.
2. Rev. Arun Barwa, son of Prabhu Prakash Barwa, aged about 53
   years, Secretary, Chotanagpur Diocean Trust Association (CNDTA),
   resident of House No. 176, St. Paul Church Compound, P.Ο. & P.S.
   Chutia, District Ranchi.
                                                         ...     Petitioners
                          Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of
   Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.Ο. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi.
2. Executive Magistrate, Hazaribagh, P.O, P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
3. Bhavesh Sumit Bhengraj, son of S. E. Bhengraj, resident of Village
   Hurhuru, Patratu, P.O. & P.S. Patratu, District Hazaribagh.
                                                     ...       Respondents
                          WITH
                    W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2019
M/s VSRS Construction through its Partner Vikash Agrawal, Aged
about 36 years, son of late S.P. Agrawal having office at House No.
227, Road No.6 West Layout Area, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Town
Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
                                                           ...    Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela
   Kharsawan, District-Saraikela Khrsawan.
3. Additional Collector, Saraikella Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela
   Kharsawan, District-Saraikela Khrsawan
4. Circle Officer, Gamaharia, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela Kharsawan,
   District-Saraikela Khrsawan.
5. District Sub Registrar, Saraikella Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela
   Kharsawan, District-Saraikela Khrsawan.
6. Adityapur Notified Area Committee through its Executive Officer,
   Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela Kharsawan, District-Saraikela
   Kharsawan.
                                                     ...       Respondents

                                                                   Page 1 of 5
                                                           2025:JHHC:13251-DB




                          WITH
                    W.P. (C) No. 2479 of 2019
Most. Bhagwati Devi, wife of Late Ghanshyam Das Kedia, aged about
70 years, resident of Pachamba, P.O., P.S. and District Giridih.
                                                            ...    Petitioner
                           Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of
   Registration, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of
   Jharkhand, Ρ.Ο. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar, Giridih, P.O, P.S. &
   District Giridih.
3. District Sub Registrar, Giridih, P.O, P.S. & District Giridih.
                                                        ...     Respondents
                           WITH
                     W.P. (C) No. 7526 of 2023
1. Birendra Narayan Deo, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Byas
   Narayan Deo, Resident of Village Senadoni, P.O. Senadono, P.S.-
   Giridih Muhfasil), District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
2. Vikram Kumar Deo, aged about 46 years, Son of Birendra Narayan
   Deo, Resident of Qr No. 48-1, Street-13, Sector-9/B, P.O.- Sector-9,
   P.S.- Haria, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand).
                                                         ...   Petitioners
                           Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, at Project
   Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
   (Jharkhand).
2. Secretary, Department of Revenue Registration and Land Reform,
   Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.-
   Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. Inspector General of Registration, Jharkhand, at Project Building,
   Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
   (Jharkhand).
4. Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Jharkhand, at Project
   Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi
   (Jharkhand)
5. Deputy Commissioner -cum-District Registrar, Giridih, at P.O. &
   P.S.-Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
6. Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Giridih Main Branch, Giridih, at P.O.
   & P.S. - Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand).
                                                     ...     Respondents
                           WITH
             W.P. (C) No. 1121 of 2024


                                                                    Page 2 of 5
                                                         2025:JHHC:13251-DB




1. Subhash Agarwal, aged about 61 years, Son of Santlal Agarwal,
2. Binod Agarwal, aged about 51 years, Son of Santlal Agarwal,
      Both Residents of Jamuna Bay Road, Bank More, Near Rey
   Takies, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                                          ...   Petitioners
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its office
   at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
   District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
   Reforms, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi,
   Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad,
   District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
4. The Additional Collector, Dhanbad, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad,
   District Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                                      ...     Respondents
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Petitioners: Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate Ms. Pratayksha Bhaskar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aman Shekhar, A.C. to G.A.-I Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C. to G.A.-IV

2025:JHHC:13251-DB

---------

07/Dated: 01.05.2025

1. In these matters, the petitioners have challenged the

constitutional validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as

introduced by the State of Bihar vide the Bihar Amendment 6 of 1991

which has also been adopted by the State of Jharkhand, and the

consequential notification issued thereunder being notification No.1132

dated 26.08.2015.

2. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable in the

State of Jharkhand is as under:

"22-A. Registration of documents which is against the public policy.- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is against the public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register any document to which the notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable."

3. Admittedly, similar amendment made in the State of Rajasthan

came to be considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of

State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Basant Nahata1.

4. The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the doctrine of

"public policy" is vague and uncertain and there are no guidelines to

interpret the same. It held that it is not possible to define "public policy"

with precision at any point of time and it is not for the Executive to fill

the grey areas as the said power vests in the judiciary. It held that

whenever interpretation of concept "public policy" is required to be

considered, it is for the judiciary to do so and in doing so, even the

power of the judiciary is very limited. It held that what is essentially

within the exclusive domain of the judiciary cannot be delegated to the

(2005) 12 SCC 77

2025:JHHC:13251-DB

Executive unless the policy behind the same is finally laid down. It

rejected the plea raised in that case on behalf of State of Rajasthan that

the State, being higher authority, having been delegated with the power

of making declaration in terms of Section 22-A of the Act, would not

abuse and held that the provision of Section 22-A is ultra vires Article

14 and Article 246 of the Constitution of India. It also rejected the plea

of the State of Rajasthan that it being a policy decision, Court ought not

to interfere. It held that a legislative policy must conform to the

provisions of the constitutional mandates and that even otherwise, such

a policy decision is subject to judicial review.