Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar Through The Principal ... vs Raj Kumar Sharma on 28 July, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.559 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1281 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Land
Reforms, Patna.
2. The Inspector General of Registration, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Additional Inspector General of Registration, Patna, Bihar.
5. The District Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registry Office Bikram, District- Patna,
Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sharma Resident of Village and
P.O. Shahar Rampur, P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, AC to SC 11
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 28-07-2025
In the instant appeal, appellants have assailed the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2022 passed in CWJC No.
1281 of 2019. Respondent - Raj Kumar Sharma in the writ
petition has prayed for the following reliefs :
"i. To quash the order dated
29.05.2015
passed in Case No-21 / 2014 under
the signature of Additional Inspector General of
Registration, Patna by which the ex-parte order
Patna High Court L.P.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
has been passed accepting the reference made
by the District Sub - Registrar, Bikram, without
following the due procedure of law.
ii. To quash the Letter No. 292 dated
04.06.2015 in Case No.-21/2014 passed by the
Additional Inspector General, Registration,
Patna.
iii. To grant permission to add,
amend, modify or other wise vary the grounds
in support of this writ.
iv. To grant any other relief or reliefs
to which the petitioner is otherwise found
entitled to along with the cost of the litigation
throughout."
2. The learned Single Judge has not taken note of and
appreciated delay and laches on the part of the respondent - Raj
Kumar Sharma in view of the fact that he had presented the
document for the purpose of registration before the jurisdictional
Sub-Registrar on 28.10.2013. The document was not registered
in accordance with law, this is evident from the material on
record to the extent that the respondent is not in possession of
alleged registered document and even to this day. In order to
ascertain whether the document produced by the respondent on
28.10.2013 was registered or not, to that extent we have
summoned the appellants / State to furnish the original records
Patna High Court L.P.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
relating to registration of the document dated 28.10.2013
presented by the respondent.
3. Perusal of the original records, it is evident that
registration of the document presented by the respondent is
incomplete. The then Sub-Registrar proceeded to furnish the
papers to the next higher authority on certain deficiencies,
therefore, the respondent had cause of action to invoke remedy
before this Court in seeking a direction to release the alleged
stated to be registered document presented by him on 28.10.2013
within a period of one year from the date of presentation of the
document on 28.10.2013 to the extent of seeking writ of
mandamus. On the other hand, he has slept over the matter and
waiting for some communication from the appellants / State. The
appellants / State have rejected the respondent's Case No. 21 of
2014 on 29.05.2015. Thereafter, the respondent has presented the
writ petition on 19.01.2019. There is delay and laches on the part
of the respondent in not invoking the remedy before this Court in
filing the writ petition within a reasonable period of time from
the date of cause of action accrued with reference to the date of
presentation of the document for registration on 28.10.2013 read
with impugned communication dated 29.05.2015 in the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
petition, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error
in entertaining stale claim of the respondent.
4. While examining the merits of the case, it is to be
noticed that document presented on behalf of the respondent on
28.10.2013 for the purpose of registration, the Sub-Registrar has
not completed the process of registration as is evident from the
original records summoned from the appellants / State. It is also
further submitted that respondent does not possess the document
registered and to contend that it was registered.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
appellants have failed to appreciate sub-Rule (2) and (3) of Rule
9, Rule 19 (x) and Rule 20 of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008.
The same cannot be examined in view of the fact that the present
appeal is allowed only with reference to the conduct of the
respondent insofar as adjudicating the matter belatedly. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and
Kashmir V/s. R.K.Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 SC
3006, Paragraph-20, it is held as under:
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a
passage from City and Industrial Development
Corporation V/s.Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and
others {(2009) 1 SCC 168}, wherein this Court while
dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, has expressed thus:-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
"The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any
complex and disputed question of facts and whether
they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective
remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of
unexplained delay and laches;
(e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred
by any valid law; and host of other factors"
Underline Supplied
One of the issue to be examined by the writ court is
relating to delay and laches. The said principle is attracted
insofar as rejection of CWJC No. 1281 of 2019. In the light of
these facts and circumstances, the appellants / State have made
out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 02.08.2022 passed in CWJC No. 1281 of 2019 and it
is set aside. CWJC No. 1281 of 2019 stands rejected.
Accordingly, present LPA No. 559 of 2022 is allowed.
6. Pending I.A., if any, stands dispose of.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants, on
instruction, submitted that document dated 28.10.2013 read with
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.08.2022 passed in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.559 of 2022 dt.28-07-2025
CWJC No. 1281 of 2019 and MJC No. 1722 of 2023 on
03.02.2024, the document was registered, therefore, virtually
present litigation has become infructuous. However, registration
of document was subject to outcome of this LPA as ordered by
the concerned appellant. In view of the later development,
appellants are permitted to resort to collect shortage of
registration fees and penalty from the respondent strictly in
accordance with law after due notice.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 31.07.2025
Transmission Date NA
