JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The sale deed dated 2nd July, 2014 presented by the petitioner vendor before the respondent no. 4, District Sub-Registrar, Koderma containing conveyance of the land situate on Khata no. 2/5, Plot no. 35, Area 1 decimal, Mauza Bisunpur, Jhumari Tilaiya, Ward no. 13 (old) and Ward no. 1 (new), District Koderma, has been returned by the Respondent no. 4, District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, making an endorsement that registration of plots under Mauza Bisunpur has been prohibited by Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, respondent no. 3 as per his order contained in Memo no. 2620 dated 29th September, 2011 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is not in accordance with law and without application of mind. Respondent no. 4 seems to have relied upon the order at Annexure-3 which does not even contain reference of the plots comprising Khata no. 250 of Mauza Bisunpur totalling 333.62 acres, so as to make out any case for return of the sale deed. Since presentation of the sale deed has not been refused for any reason or otherwise it is based upon the communication of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma itself, petitioner has been denied the remedy of appeal under Section 72 of Indian Registration Act, 1908. Such an action on the basis of a general direction cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. Respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that registration of land of village Bisunpur, which is Gair Majarua Khas land as per cadestral survey record, has been stopped due to the inquiry and verification being conducted by Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on allegation of unauthorized sale, transfer and exchange of land in the said mauza. All Circle Officers and Revenue Officers of the district were directed to examine the Zamabandi/Register-II of the raiyats, particularly in respect of Gairmajurwa Khas Land and on being found illegal or doubtful, to recommend proposal for their cancellation obtained by fraudulent and unscrupulous. Counsel for the Respondent State submits that on account of those reasons registration of the document was stopped. However, it is not clear from the stand of the respondent filed on 16th September, 2014 that such inquiry has been concluded. 4. Counsel for the Respondent State submits that on account of those reasons registration of the document was stopped. However, it is not clear from the stand of the respondent filed on 16th September, 2014 that such inquiry has been concluded. 4. Having considered the submission of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts noted herein above, it appears that on a general direction of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in contemplation of conclusion of an inquiry in respect of doubtful and illegal Zamabandi created in Mauza Bishunpur and several such Mauzas in the district of Koderma, the order at Annexure-3 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. It is also apparent that so far as sale deed presented by the petitioner for registration is concerned, there is no specific finding in that regard by the respondent no. 4. It therefore appears that the respondent no. 4 should examine the sale deed of the petitioner on its presentation in accordance with law taking into account all circulars and guidelines issued on the point by the Land Reforms and Revenue Department and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajrajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel in W.P. (C) No. 6184 of 2014 reported in 2015 (3) JCR 598 (Jhr.) on the subject. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. Let it however also made clear that this Court has not expressed any comments on the merits of the case whether instrument being presented for registration is fit for registration or not as per law. 5. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid manner.