Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 863 (JHR)

Shailendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-26

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9th February, 2012 (Annexure7) passed by the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi, whereby three sale deeds dated 8th July, 2011 presented by the petitioner were held to be contrary to the provisions of Registration Act and registration thereof was refused. 2. The short point taken in this writ petition is as to whether a document which is sufficiently stamped and duly executed by the vendor with regard to immovable property falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Registrar can be refused for registration. The District Sub Registrar, Ranchi has refused registration of the petitioner's document on the ground that the document by which the petitioner had purchased the property was registered in Kolkata in violation of the provisions of Section 28 of the Registration Act. It was further mentioned that the sale deeds cannot be also registered in view of the general notice issued by the Deputy Commissionercum-District Registrar vide Memo no.159 dated 22nd December, 1992, whereby the registration of any deed regarding land of Khata No.193 has been restrained. 3. According to the petitioner, the said notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Registrar dated 22nd December, 1992 (Annexure-6) in view of the pendency of some cases detail of which was not mentioned. The notice is vague, unspecific and has no legal effect. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to prevent sale transaction of any land by issuing such arbitrary notice. 4. It has been submitted that registration of property of any part of the country in Kolkata was valid before amendment in Section 30(2) brought by Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991, which came into force with effect from 8th August, 1991. According to the earlier provision, the Registrar of a district in which a Presidency-town is included and the Registrar at Delhi district had power to receive and register any document referred to in Section 28 without any limitation regarding the situation of the property in any part of India. The document by which the petitioner had purchased the property was of the year 1982. The deed was registered under the said provision of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. It has been further submitted that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of any document presented for registration, if the document is in accordance with the statutory requirements. 6. The deed was registered under the said provision of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. It has been further submitted that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of any document presented for registration, if the document is in accordance with the statutory requirements. 6. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the impugned order (Annexure7) and the grounds on which registration of the document of the petitioner has been refused, have been supported by the respondents. However, nowhere in the counter affidavit, the legal provision of Section 30(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 before its amendment has been disputed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is not in dispute that the sale deeds, presented before the District Sub Registrar for registration, contain sufficient stamp and fulfill and comply with all the requirements and formalities. 8. The objection of the respondent that the document of the petitioner registered in Kolkata in 1982 is not sustainable in view of the clear provision under Section 30(2) (before amendment in the Registration Act in 1991. 9. By Bihar Amendment Act 1991 (Act 6 of 1991), provision was made for presenting deed for registration in the office of Sub Registrar within the area under which the property is situated. By the said amending Act, Subsection (2) of Section 30 was deleted. 10. The registration of the document outside the territorial jurisdiction of presidency town came to be restricted by the said amending Act, 1991. Since the document of the petitioner was of the year 1982, there was no ground for alleging that the same was not validly registered. 11. Another ground for refusal of registration mentioned in the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner has restricted transfer by order dated 22nd December, 1992 is also unsustainable. The letter mentioned in the order has been enclosed in the writ petition as Annexure6, which appears to be issued by the urban land ceiling office of the Deputy Commissioner. 12. The Urban Land Ceiling Act had been repealed and the State of Jharkhand has adopted the said Repealing Act by notification dated 24th January, 2011 and if there is any proceeding pending, the same stands abated. 13. 12. The Urban Land Ceiling Act had been repealed and the State of Jharkhand has adopted the said Repealing Act by notification dated 24th January, 2011 and if there is any proceeding pending, the same stands abated. 13. Even otherwise, no specific description has been given of the alleged pending litigation in respect of the land. Annexure6 does not mention the case number and the name of the Court/ parties or the provision under which the proceeding is pending. Such vague letter has no binding effect. 14. I, therefore, find no legal justification for refusing registration of the petitioner's deeds by the respondents on the ground mentioned in the impugned order. The impugned order dated 9th February, 2012 (Annexure7) passed by the District Sub Registrar is wholly illegal and unsustainable. 15. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure7 is quashed. 16. The Respondents are directed to register the deeds presented by the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment and deficiency in the deeds. Petition allowed.