Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 595 (JHR)

Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-14

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-authorities, particularly, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to register the documents presented by the petitioner on 14.9.2017 (wrongly written as 8.12.2016 in the first paragraph of the present writ petition) for selling the land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 41, Khata No. 41, Plot No.31, Village-Satkanadu, P.S. Pithoria, P.S. No. 31, Circle-Kanke, District-Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') measuring an area of 1500 sq. ft. (3.44 decimals approx) out of the total area of 110 decimals. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the said land on payment of the consideration of Rs.21,000/- by virtue of registered sale deed No. 16325/14376 dated 26.8.2009 from his vendor, namely, Sanjeevani Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. through Mrs. Anamika Nandy, wife of Sri S.Nandy. Thereafter, the petitioner got his name mutated in the office of Kanke Anchal, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No.1499 R 27/2009-10 and till today he is in peaceful possession over the said land and the rent receipts have also been issued in his favour. Since the petitioner was in need of money, he intended to sell the said land. One purchaser, namely, Meena Kedia, wife of Naresh Kedia, resident of Aashashree Garden, P.O.-Morabadi, P.S.Bariatu, District-Ranchi agreed to purchase the said land for a valuable consideration of Rs.66,500/-. Accordingly, a sale-deed was presented before the respondent No.4 on 14.9.2017 for its registration, however, the respondent No. 4 has neither admitted the said document instrument for its registration nor has refused the registration of the same. The provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1908), mandate that if the District Sub-Registrar does not intend to admit any instrument for registration, he shall refuse the registration of the same for the reasons recorded in writing. However, any instrument presented before the said authority cannot be kept pending without assigning any reason. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner (vendor) and the purchaser presented the sale-deed before the respondent No.4 for its registration on 14.9.2017. However, any instrument presented before the said authority cannot be kept pending without assigning any reason. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner (vendor) and the purchaser presented the sale-deed before the respondent No.4 for its registration on 14.9.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that after presenting the sale-deed before the respondent No.4, he has neither registered the sale-deed nor assigned any reason for refusal of the same. Section 71 of the Act, 1908 reads as under: "71. Reasons of 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." 5. 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 for its registration. 6. Considering the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1908, it may be construed that the District Sub-Registrar, on presentation of a 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. 7. In the case in hand, since the petitioner has presented the sale-deed before the respondent No. 4 for its registration on 14.9.2017, the respondent No.4 cannot keep the registration of the same pending. 7. In the case in hand, since the petitioner has presented the sale-deed before the respondent No. 4 for its registration on 14.9.2017, the respondent No.4 cannot keep the registration of the same pending. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent No.4 is directed either to admit the sale-deed presented before him by the petitioner for its 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 shall conclude the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observation/direction.