Jharkhand High Court
Ram Naresh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:26791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No.6570 of 2024
----
Ram Naresh Prasad, aged about 74 years, S/o Late Bundi Mahto Patwari,
R/o Parwati Kutir, West Hurhuru Road, Hazaribagh, P.O.+P.S.-Hazaribagh,
Distrit-Hazribagh, State - Jharkhand. (Power of Attorney Holder) on behalf
of Sri Harihar Mahto, S/o-Late Prasadi Mahto & Sri Naresh Prasad, S/o -
Late Baldeo Mahto, R/o - Village -Bouga, P.O.-Bauga, P.S.-Ichak, Dist.-
Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand, present address - Vill-Bogadog, Pragana,
Goriya, P.O.+P.S.- Simariya, Dist.-Chatra, Jharkhand.
.... .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Land Reforms, Revenue &
Registration Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
P.O.+P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Registrar of District-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, at,
P.O.+P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
3. The District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh, Registration Department,
Government of Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S.- Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh.
.... .... Respondent(s)
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchi Mukti, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA
----
05/Dated: 04th September, 2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"for issuance of a writ(s) rule (s) orders(s) for quashing of
the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous (Related to release from prohibited
list) Case No. 74/2022 (Ram Naresh Prasad Vs State, Circle
Officer, Ichak, Hazaribagh) (Annexure-8) whereby the Ld. Deputy
Commissioner, Hazaribagh has rejected the application of the
petitioner regarding release of his land from prohibited list on the
ground that land in question is Gair Manzarua khas and "Aahar
prativedit" type of land which is non transferrable in nature in
absence of any findings given by Circle Officer, Ichak, Hazaribag.
and
The petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ(s) rule (s)
orders(s) in the nature of Mandamus for direction upon the
Respondents to allow land registration or sale of the land
measuring an area 33.35 decimals out of 1.26 Acres from the
2025:JHHC:26791
Khata no 154, Plot No. 2606, of Mouza/ Village-Bonga, under
Thana No. 37, Police Station Ichak, District- Hazaribagh, which
has been illegally refused by the District Sub Registrar,
Hazaribagh, Registration Department, Government of Jharkhand
and District registration as an authority in the District failed to
examine his jurisdiction section 71, 74 & 75 of Registration Act
1908."
2. The description of the land is as follows:-
"The land measuring an area 33.35 decimals out of 1.26
Acres from the Khata No.154, Plot No.2606, of Mouza/Village-
Bonga, under Thana No.37, Police Station Ichak, District-
Hazaribagh."
3. The dispute is with regard to the existence of the prohibited list. The
concept of prohibited list has been drawn from Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 and the Notification No.1132 dated 26.08.2015
issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms.
4. The Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 along with the
notification has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 01.05.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No.5088 of 2018 with
analogous cases. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted
hereinbelow:-
"Para-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 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 it 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.
Para-5, Having regard to the said decision of the Supreme
Court, which is binding on this Court, and since the provision
considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment is identical
to the provision framed by the Bihar State, which is adopted by the
Page | 2 W.P. (C) No.6570 of 2024
2025:JHHC:26791
State of Jharkhand, Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as
amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and as adopted
by the State of Jharkhand, as well as the consequential Notification
issued under the said provision on 26.08.2015 are struck down and
all orders passed by the Sub Registrars or the officials of the
Registration Department pursuant to the notification 26.08.2015
shall stand set aside."
5. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also passed the
order like this in W.P. (PIL) No.689 of 2021. The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
"30. In the above Rule, there is no provision conferring
power on the Sub. Registrar/ Registration department official to
refuse registration of any document on the ground that there is a
dispute about title of the property. The counsel for the petitioner
was also unable to show us any other provision except Section 22-
A and the notification dt. 26.8.2015, which have been struck down
by this Court.
31. The Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar and
Others referred to the rule-making power under Section 69 of the
Registration Act, 1908, conferring power on the Inspector General
to superintend registration offices and make rules, and held that
there is no power conferred on the registering authority to refuse
registration of a document of transfer.
It also held that there is no provision in the Registration Act
conferring power on any authority to refuse registration of a
transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the
title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established.
It declared that the registering authority is not concerned
with the title of the executants and he has no adjudicatory power to
decide whether the executant has any title.
It declared that even if an executant executes a sale-deed or
a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title,
registering officer cannot refuse to register a document if all
procedural compliances are made and a necessary stamp-duty as
well as registration charges/fee are paid.
It also held that under the scheme of the Registration Act,
1908, it is not the function of Sub-Registrar or Registering
Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property
which he seeks to transfer.
Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to
the document are present before him and the parties admit
execution thereof before him, subject of making procedural
compliances as mentioned in the rules framed under the
Registration Act, the document must be registered.
It held that the execution and registration of a document
have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the
executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest
in the property, the registered document cannot effect any
transfer."
Page | 3 W.P. (C) No.6570 of 2024
2025:JHHC:26791
6. Since Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 along with the
notification has been struck down as such there is no concept of the
prohibited list, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure-8) passed
by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Miscellaneous (Related to
release from Prohibited List) Case No.74 of 2022, is hereby quashed and set
aside. It is hereby declared that the above land is not part of the prohibited
list.
7. Further, the registration/sale of the land has been refused by the
District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh and the reason for refusal is existence of
the land in the prohibited list.
8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach
before the concerned Registering Authority and the Authority is directed to
act as per Law.
9. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands
allowed and disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
Page | 4 W.P. (C) No.6570 of 2024
