Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 861 (JHR)

Tarkeshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner presented two sale -deeds executed in favour of vendee before the Sub-Registrar, Koderma on 09.05.2013 for its registration. The Sub-Registrar, Koderma refused to register the sale-deeds on the same day by making endorsement over back of one of the pages of the sale-deeds to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner vide its Memo No.2620 dated 29.09.2011 has put restriction over the registration of the sale-deeds with respect to land subject matter of transfer. 3. Similarly on 05.06.2013 the petitioner further presented two sale deeds in favour of vendee before the Sub-Registrar for its registration. On the same day, Sub-Registrar refused to register it on the same ground which he had refused to register the sale-deed earlier. On such refusal, this Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Mr. V. K. Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that restrictions over the registration of the sale-deed has been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner on account of the fact as it is appearing from the Annexure-2 that several complaints have been received relating to the transfer being made on the basis of forged 'Hukumnama' and that too with respect to lands, character of which were 'gair mazarua aam and gair mazarua khas', but even on such ground, Deputy Commissioner cannot put restriction over the registration of the sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act. 5. The Deputy Commissioner can put restrictions over registration of the sale-deed only on two grounds which are there under Sections 71 and 74 of the Registration Act and thereby any restriction put by the Deputy Commissioner under his order as contained in Memo No.2620 dated 29.09.2011 is bad and is unsustainable in law. 6. Learned counsel further submits that this Court on earlier occasion taking into account the provisions of the Registration Act, has quashed such restriction whenever it was put either by the D.C. or the Revenue authority. 7. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dinesh Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P. [C] No.7325 of 2011 and also in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Sri Mohini Mohan Das and Ors in L.P.A. No.08 of 2007. 8. 7. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Dinesh Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., in W.P. [C] No.7325 of 2011 and also in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Sri Mohini Mohan Das and Ors in L.P.A. No.08 of 2007. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State by referring to the statements made in the counter-affidavit, submits that since illegal transfers of the land were taking place in the District of Koderma on the basis of forged and fabricated 'Hukumnama” the then D.C., Koderma had to put restrictions and under that circumstances, such kind of restrictions put by the D.C. may not be unreasonable rather it is quite reasonable and thereby, the Sub-Registrar has rightly refused to register the sale-deeds. 9. It be stated that the D.C. when did receive several complaints that in the area of Koderma, transfer of land is being made on the basis of forged and fabricated “Hukumnama” restrictions were imposed to the effect that the land appertaining to certain plots falling within the several mauzas including the Mauza :-Gomo to which the case is concerned with, shall not be transferred and thereby, the Sub-Registrar shall not be accepting the sale-deeds with respect to those lands for its registration. 10. Thus, the question does arise as to whether the Registrar does have power under the Registration Act to put such restriction as has been put in the instant case? 11. In this respect, I may refer to the provisions, as contained in Sections 71 and 74 of the Registration Act which read as follows:- 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 74. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 74. Procedure of Registrar on such application :-In such case, and also where such denial as aforesaid is made before a Registrar in respect of a document presented for registration to him, the Registrar shall, as soon as conveniently may be, enquire------------ (a) whether the document has been executed; (b) whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or person presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to registration. 12. From the perusal of the provisions as contained in Section 71 of the Act, it does appear that the Sub-Registrar can refuse registration of the sale-deed and if it is refused then he has to assign reason for its refusal, what could be those reasons for refusal to register the sale-deed, it is found out in Section 74 of the Registration Act, wherein it has been prescribed that on two conditions mentioned below, registration can be denied:- (a) whether the document has been executed; (b) whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or person presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to registration. 13. Thus, it is obvious that only on those two conditions mentioned above, the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register the sale-deeds. 14. In that event, restriction which has been put by the Registrar is against the provisions as contained in Section 74 of the Act which could never be held to be sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, the condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on account of which the Sub-Registrar refused to register sale-deed being invalid cannot be a ground for refusing sale-deed to be registered and hence, the Sub-Registrar, Koderma is hereby, directed to register the sale-deeds forthwith whenever it is presented for its registration. 16. With this observation and direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.