Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1323 (JHR)

Brijmohan Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-26

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 for registration of the duly executed and stamped deed of sale presented for registration on 24.05.2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat being Flat No. 104, having built-up area of 1720 sq. ft., situated over Plot No. 54, Khata No. 07, Mouja-Gari, Thana No. 194, District-Ranchi, within Ward No.6 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’) with Morias Construction Company, represented through its proprietor and on behalf of the land owners as their Power of Attorney holder. The erstwhile landlord settled the said land in favour of the recorded tenant Etwa Oraon as the Chapperbandi settlement by virtue of Sada Hukumnana dated 17.05.1944. In the year 1955-56, the ex-landlord submitted the return of the Chapperbandi settlement before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Thereafter, the original settlee Etwa Oraon and his successors-in-interest transferred the said land to several persons by executing various deeds of sale and finally, it was transferred to Abhay Kumar Singh, s/o Late Surendra Prasad Singh, Manju Singh, w/o Abhay Kumar Singh and Anuprabha Singh, w/o Ripunjay Prasad Singh. Abhay Kumar Singh, Manju Singh and Anuprabha Singh jointly entered into a development agreement on 20.03.2010 with Morias Construction Company for construction of multi-storied residential building over the said land. In pursuance of the development agreement, Morias Construction Company submitted the building plan for construction of multi-storied residential building, namely, Shree Vrinda Residency over the said land and the building plan was sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority vide B.C. Case No. 1378/2008. The petitioner entered into an agreement for purchase of Flat No. 104, having built-up area of 1720 sq. ft. in the said building vide agreement for sale dated 20.11.2012 for valuable consideration of Rs.26.94,000/-. After paying full consideration amount to Morias Construction Company, the petitioner purchased requisite stamps on 20.05.2016 amounting to Rs.1,71,500/- for registration of the deed of sale in his favour. The petitioner thereafter presented the deed of sale duly executed by the executor before the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi on 25.05.2016 for registration. However, the office of the respondent No.4 returned the sale-deed without assigning any reason and endorsement. The petitioner thereafter presented the deed of sale duly executed by the executor before the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi on 25.05.2016 for registration. However, the office of the respondent No.4 returned the sale-deed without assigning any reason and endorsement. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had enclosed all necessary documents along with the deed of sale, such as correction slips and rent receipts issued by the State of Jharkhand to respective land owners. Though there was no such requirement for enclosing those documents showing title, nature of the land and possession of the vendors, yet the petitioner by way of abundant precaution had enclosed the same. If a document presented for registration otherwise conforms the requirements and the formalities, the registering authority is bound to register the same. It is not for the registering authority to conduct enquiry and ascertain the title and nature of the land for his satisfaction. Even if a document presented for registration by the transferor does not have any title or has imperfect title of the property, the transferee on such transfer will either get no title or will get an imperfect title. Though it may cause prejudice to the transferee, yet the registering authority has no concern with the same. It is also submitted that the respondent No.4 has duly registered the deed of sale with respect to the other various flats situated over the said plot. Thus, the said action of the respondent No.4 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance upon the orders passed by this Court in Nageshwar Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) JCR 404 (Jhr) and Rabindra Nath Paul & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) JLJR 26 . 5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 34 of the Act, 1908 empowers the Registrar to conduct enquiry in order to satisfy himself as to whether the document presented for registration has been executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. 5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 34 of the Act, 1908 empowers the Registrar to conduct enquiry in order to satisfy himself as to whether the document presented for registration has been executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed. The Sub-Registrar is also required to satisfy himself with regard to the identity of the person appearing before him and as to whether the said person has right to appear. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the provisions of the Act, 1908 as well as the orders passed by this Court. 7. This Court in the case of Nageshwar Thakur & Ors. (Supra) has held as under:- “4. It is well settled that a Registration Officer has got right to impound a document presented before him, if it appears to him that the same is not duly stamped, but there is no provision in the Indian Registration Act empowering the District Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of a document on the ground of under valuation or to enquire into the correctness of the valuation as given in the document. There is also no provision in the Indian Registration Act or Rules made thereunder empowering the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to hold an inquiry on the question of title of the vendor before registration of the documents. The Registering Officer has only to see whether document is duly stamped on the valuation as given in the document.” 8. Further, this Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Paul & Ors. (Supra) has held as under:- “6. On bare perusal of the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908, it would be evident that if the District Sub-Registrar refuses to register a document, he is required to pass an order of refusal by recording his reasons for the same in the relevant book with an endorsement on the document that the registration has been refused. Section 72 of the Act, 1908 also provides a forum of appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration. 7. Section 72 of the Act, 1908 also provides a forum of appeal before the Registrar against the order of the Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration. 7. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1908, it may be construed that the District Sub-Registrar on presentation of document before him cannot keep the same pending without any reason and if he does not intend to register the document so presented, he has to pass an order of refusal of registration with an endorsement on the document that the registration has been refused.” 9. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by this Court, the respondent No.4 is directed either to admit the sale-deed presented before him by the petitioner for registration or to refuse the registration of the same by passing an order in terms with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908. The respondent No.4 is further directed to conclude the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observation/direction.