Judgment R. M. PRASAD, J. 1. In this application the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the allotment of the land in question having been made by the bokaro Steel Plant in favour of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, by whom the petitioner has been appointed as dealer for the purpose of putting up a petrol pump over the same, the Deputy Commissioner issued instructions as contained in annexure a to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 7. not to register the land in favour of the company. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that be was appointed as a dealer for retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for opening a petrol pump at Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro The town Administration department, Bokaro Steel Citv issued a letter of proposal for allotment of land for establishment of Ketail outlet Petrol Pump in Sector VII in favour of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd and in this regard the Corporation was required to deposit Rs.78,070/-. The petitioner states that the Corporation deposited a sum of Rs.85, 470/- with the, Bokaro Steel Limited on 21-1-1994 by bank receipt No.71839, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 3 to the writ application. There after the Bokaro Steal Plant allotted the land measuring 0.37 acres in Sector VIII for opening of a petrol Pump in favour of the Corporation on 10-3-1994. A Photo copy of the letter of allotment of the Bokaro Steel Limited has been annexed as annexure 4 to the writ application. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner went to the registration office for registration of the said land, but he was told that the deputy Commissioner. Bokaro by his memo No.1122/revenue dated 11-3-1994 bad written to the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department. Government of Bihar seeking direction as to whether the registration of the land allotted to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. should be allowed keeping in view the letter No.93 dated 8-3-1994 3. It appears that the petitioner bad moved this Court earlier in c. W. J. C. No 238/92 (R) when the matter regarding allotment of land was pending consideration before the Steel Authority India Ltd. In the said writ application the Steel Authority of India was directed to consider the application made by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation along with other such companies and pass orders. Thereafter the allotment was made and the money was also accepted by the company. However, since then the Authorities are sitting tight over the matter and not registering the land in question. The present writ application was filed for issuance of a direction to the registering authority for registration of the land in question. 4. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition it is specifically stated that the letter No.93 dated 8-3-94 referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in his earlier latter to the Government to entirely on different subject and one nothing to do with the allotment of the land, but the Steel Authority. Bokaro plant in favour of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for importing public utility service. In fact, the said letter relates to providing allotment of land by the Bokaro Steel Plant to the Corporative Housing Society for the purpose of house construction as is also evident from the letter dated 16-4-94 of the industrial Development Commissioner to the Managing Director, Bokaro steel Plant, contained in annexure 7. 5. This matter was for the first time taken up for admission on 23-1-95 when at the request of the learned Counsel for the state it was adjourned to 8-2-95 to enable him to take instructions and file counter affidavit. It was made clear on that date that if no instruction was obtained, then the matter would disposed of on the next date on the basis of the materials available on records. However, as a last indulgence one more time was granted vide order dated 6-2-96 at the request of the learned Counsel for the State to enable him to take instruction and file counter affidavit On 9-3-95 the matter was adjourned to 13-3-95 to enable the petitioner to file the notification of acquisition of the land is question which has been filed along with a supplementary, affidavit, as contained in annexure 10. On 23-3-95 this matter was again adjourned for today and the learned Government Advocate was directed to take full instructions and file counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents including the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (respondent no.4 ). It was again made clear that if no counter affidavit was filed this matter might be disposed of finally on the basis of the materials available on the record. 6. It was again made clear that if no counter affidavit was filed this matter might be disposed of finally on the basis of the materials available on the record. 6. Learned Government Advocate, who appeard on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 submits that he has not received any instruction so far. He however, prays for further time. In my opinion, the respondents are not entitled for any further indulgates in the matter in view of the repeated adjournments granted at the requests rate oh their behalf with the clear stipulation that the matter may be disposed of finally on the basis of the materials available on the record if no counter affidavit is filed. On the last date Mr. Banerjee, who generally appears for the Steel Authority of India, was also directed to take full instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 5 to 7, and a counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. 7. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the said respondents has contended that the Company has no adjaction is the registration of the land is question in favour of the Corporation, However, Mr. Banerjee submitted that in view of the restriction imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, vide annexurea the registration is not being made. 8. In absence of any counter affidavit the learned J. C. to Government advocate has not been able to support the action of the respondent Dy. Commissioner is not registering the land in question. However, the learned to Government Advocate submitted that there is no allotment made by the company in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot claim an, registration in his favour. 9. I am unable to appreciate this submission of the learned Junior counsel to the Government Advocate. The Deputy Commissioner in my opinion, has no jurisdiction to raise any such objection. The learned J C to govt. Advocate could not point out any law, which authorises the Dy. Commissioner to refuse registration on the land to question if two parties namely, the seller and the buyer of the land agree for the same. In. that view of the matter in my opinion, the action of the respondent Dy. Commissioner in not registering the land in question is wholly arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act. Commissioner to refuse registration on the land to question if two parties namely, the seller and the buyer of the land agree for the same. In. that view of the matter in my opinion, the action of the respondent Dy. Commissioner in not registering the land in question is wholly arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Registration Act. In a Division Bench Judgment, reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144 (Bihar Deed Writers Association and others v Stale of Bihar and others) this Court held that if a document otherwise complied with the statutory requirements and formalities is presented for registration, the registering auteority is bound to register it. It is not for the registering authority to enquire and ascertain the title to its own satisfaction under the provisions of the T. P. Act, 1982, if the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer wilj either get no title nr he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is of no coccare to the registering authori. . . " 10. Accordingly, the writ application succeeds and the respondent no.4 is directed to pass necessary order foe registration of the land in question without any further delay. Petition allowed.