Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 92 (JHR)

Rabindra Nath Paul v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-11

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents particularly the respondent no. 5 to register the sale-deeds presented before him in respect of the land in question. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to refuse registration of sale-deeds of the petitioners presented in respect of the land in question as the petitioners have the ownership and possession over the said land without objection from any corner. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land in question is situated at Ranguni Mouza No. 226, P.S.-Katras, Dhanbad, Khata Nos. 12, 34, 36, 41, 46, 48, 50, 52, 61, 65, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, 84, 83, 105 (for Nirmal Paul), Khata Nos. 34, 41, 52, 60, 61, 67, 71, 78, 99, 107 (for Haribol Paul), Khata Nos. 34, 36, 41, 44, 46, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 71, 73, 74, 102, 105 (for Latika Bala Paul), Khata Nos. 36, 46, 52, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 105, 106 (for Rabindra Nath Paul), Khata Nos. 14, 36, 41, 52, 65, 66, 67, 71, 74, 82, Plot Nos. 631, 632 (for Ambika Bala Paul) and Khata Nos. 12, 36, 46, 51, 61, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 101, 105 (for Satya Narayan Paul), measuring an area of 112.46 acres. Chandra Mohan Dutta, his nephew Sambhu Nath Dutta and Shashibala Dasi W/o late Sristidhar Dutta (another brother of Chandra Mohan Dutta) were permanent tenure holder having interest to the extent of 2 Annas each in the entire mouza. The aforesaid owners mortgaged their respective shares in favour of Murlidhar Paul (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) and Haribol Paul. When the mortgager failed to repay the mortgage money, mortgagees i.e., Murlidhar Paul and Haribol Paul filed the Title Suit Nos. 61/1928, 30/1930 and 8/1941 which were decreed in favour of the mortgagees. The said decrees were put in execution and ultimately the lands were put on auction sale and the mortgagees purchased the properties. Accordingly the sale certificates were issued in their favour and delivery of possession of the properties were effected through Execution Case Nos. 366/1931, 492/1935, 144/1938, 138/1940 and 140/1940. Thus, said Murlidhar Paul and Haribol Paul became the exclusive owners of 6 Annas interest of Mouza-Ranguni. Accordingly the sale certificates were issued in their favour and delivery of possession of the properties were effected through Execution Case Nos. 366/1931, 492/1935, 144/1938, 138/1940 and 140/1940. Thus, said Murlidhar Paul and Haribol Paul became the exclusive owners of 6 Annas interest of Mouza-Ranguni. Murlidhar Paul died prior to 1956 and his interest in the properties were inherited by his widow Ambika Bala Paul, daughter-in-law Latika Bala Paul and three sons namely, Satya Narayan Paul, Nirmal Kumar Paul and Rabindra Nath Paul. After due enquiry, rent in respect of Khas possessed land were assessed and fixed under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Form-M were issued in the name of the heirs of late Murlidhar Paul and Haribol Paul under different rent fixation cases in the year, 1962-63 and rent receipts were accordingly issued under Jamabandi Nos. 49, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 58 of Mouza-Ranguni and entries were made in Register-II. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits the legal heirs of judgment-debtor of the mortgage suit fraudulently applied for creation of jamabandi in their favour and the same was opened in connivance with the revenue authorities bearing Jamabandi Nos. 125 to 128 and 154 that too, without any notice or information to the petitioners for the land in question vide Rent Fixation Case No.1(3)/80-81 [I(iii)/80-81] and 2(3)/80-81 [2(iii)/80-81] by the Circle Officer, Baghmara, which was challenged by the petitioners in Misc. Case No. 5/2008 before the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that the Court of Collector, Dhanbad vide order dated 14.7.2009/25.8.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008 set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer, Baghmara in Rent Fixation Case Nos. 1(3)/80-81 [I(iii)/80-81] and 2(3)/80-81 [2(iii)/80-81]. By reasons of the said order dated 14.7.2009/25.8.2009, Jamabandi Nos. 125 to 128 and 154 running in the name of the heirs of the judgment-debtor of Mortgage Title Nos. 61/1928, 23/1930 and 8/1941 were cancelled and the jamabandi in favour of the petitioners were restored. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners thereafter sold part of the land in question to different purchasers through various registered sale-deeds during the year 2016-17. 61/1928, 23/1930 and 8/1941 were cancelled and the jamabandi in favour of the petitioners were restored. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners thereafter sold part of the land in question to different purchasers through various registered sale-deeds during the year 2016-17. The petitioners have sold part of the land during the said period to 34 different purchasers without any complain or hindrance from any corner and subsequent to that, the purchasers have also got their names mutated through different mutation proceedings and the names have also been entered in Register-II. Thereafter, on 29.7.2017, the petitioners presented five numbers of sale-deeds before the District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad (respondent no. 5) for getting the sale-deeds registered in the name of respective purchasers. However, the respondent no. 5 without assigning any reason, has been sitting tight over the said sale-deeds presented by the petitioners and the purchasers for registration. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the said action of respondent no. 5 is contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1908"). The Sub-Registrar of a district cannot sit tight over the instrument presented before it for registration. Otherwise also, considering the background of the land explained hereinabove, the respondent no. 5 cannot refuse the registration of the sale-deeds presented at the instance of the petitioners. 4. Mr. Shyam Narsaria, the learned JC to GA-IV has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the petitioners (vendors) and the purchasers presented five numbers of sale-deeds before the respondent no. 5 for registration on 29.7.2017. The grievance of the petitioners is that after presenting the sale-deeds before the respondent no. 5, he has neither registered the sale-deeds nor assigned any reason for refusal of the same. Section 71 of the Act, 1908 reads as under:- "71. 5 for registration on 29.7.2017. The grievance of the petitioners is that after presenting the sale-deeds before the respondent no. 5, he has neither registered the sale-deeds 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." 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 bf 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. 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. 8. In the case in hand, since the petitioners have presented the sale-deeds before the respondent no. 5 for registration on 29.7.2017, the respondent no. 5 cannot keep the registration of the same pending. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 5 is directed either to admit the sale-deeds presented before him by the petitioners 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. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent no. 5 is directed either to admit the sale-deeds presented before him by the petitioners 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. 5 is directed to conclude the said exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observation/direction.