Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1177 (JHR)

USHA SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2015-09-23

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Seeking a direction upon the respondent-Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Registrar and the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, to register the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of one Baby Kumari in respect to 1400 sq. ft. of land, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claims herself a purchaser from Smt. Suman Kumar through registered sale-deed dated 05.12.2003. Her name was mutated in Register-II vide Mutation Case No. 437 of 2005-06 and thereafter, rent receipt was issued for the year 2011-12. The petitioner executed sale-deed dated 18.06.2015 in favour of Baby Kumari and presented the same before the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar however, the sale-deed has been returned with the endorsement that in view of order contained in Memo dated 02.07.2011, registration of land acquired under Section 25A of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 53 of the SPT Act has been stopped. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2088 of 2014 however, taking note of the stand taken by the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar that no sale-deed in respect of land comprised in Plot No.1249 measuring about 1400 sq. ft. in Mouza-Chandpur in Thana No.261 was presented for registration, this Court refused to entertain the writ petition. Now, the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement of the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar whereby, registration of sale-deed dated 18.06.2015 has been denied. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to order passed in W.P.(C) No.362 of 2015 and submits that a similar direction may be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to examine the documents of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order directing the Registering Authority to register the sale-deeds. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand referred to order passed in W.P.(C) No.6184 of 2014 and Batch cases and submits that in view of provision of appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The learned counsel refers to recitals in the sale-deed dated 18.06.2015 and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and submits that there are serious discrepancies in the case presented by the petitioner. The learned counsel refers to recitals in the sale-deed dated 18.06.2015 and the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and submits that there are serious discrepancies in the case presented by the petitioner. Challenging the bonafide of the petitioner for seeking a direction upon the Registering Authority to register the sale-deed dated 18.06.2015, the learned counsel submits that there is serious dispute as to description of the property comprised in sale-deed dated 18.06.2015 and the documents produced by the petitioner. 5. In W.P.(C) No.362 of 2015, the title and ownership of respondent no. 4 was not under cloud and, the title of respondent no.4 over the land in question was not challenged. Moreover, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had granted permission to respondent no.4 for sale of the property whereas, in the present case, a dispute as to the description of the property has been raised by the respondents. I find that in W.P.(C) No.6184 of 2014 and Batch cases, this Court held that in all cases where the Registering Authority refuses to register a document, appropriate endorsement would be made on the sale-deed and it would be open to aggrieved person to file an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908. It was held that whether a document can be registered or not, is a matter which can be decided by the Registering Authority and therefore, a prayer seeking direction upon the Registering Authority to accept the sale-deed for registration cannot be granted. Considering the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6184 of 2014 and Batch cases, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable however, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer appeal in terms of Section 72 of Registration Act, 1908.