Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 533 (JHR)

Radha Mohan Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2021-07-20

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.5 to register the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.6 on 25.01.2021 with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 3, Plot No. 229, Mouza-Silapatt, P.S-Karra, P.S. No. 170, District-Khunti, measuring an area of 7.90 Acres. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land is the petitioner’s ancestral property which was recorded in Revisional Survey Khatian in the name of his grandmother, namely, Ugratara Kunwar, wife of Umanath Mishra as per her legitimate share. After partition of the said property, the petitioner came in exclusive possession of the same and paid rents and taxes accordingly. However, the said land remained recorded in the name of the petitioner’s grandmother in revenue records. Since the petitioner was in urgent need of money, he decided to sell the said land to the respondent No.6. Accordingly, a sale deed was executed on 25.01.2021 by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.6 and the same was presented for registration on 25.01.2021 before the respondent No.5. The stamp duty was also paid to the Government of Jharkhand for the said purpose on 25.01.2021 itself as would be evident from the receipt annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that despite presentation of the said sale deed, the respondent No.5 did not take any step for registration of the same, however, the petitioner came to know that the same was orally refused by the respondent No.5. Mr. P. C. Roy, learned S.C (L&C)-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that it is not clear from the writ petition as to on what ground the respondent No.5 kept the said sale deed pending for registration. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. According to the petitioner, the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent No.6 was presented before the respondent No.5 on 25.01.2021 for registration and the stamp duty for the said purpose was also paid on the same date itself. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents available on record. According to the petitioner, the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent No.6 was presented before the respondent No.5 on 25.01.2021 for registration and the stamp duty for the said purpose was also paid on the same date itself. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite presentation of the sale deed before the respondent No.5, he neither registered the same nor assigned any reason for its refusal, rather the said respondent orally informed him that the same could not be registered. In the aforesaid factual context, it would be relevant to refer Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’] which is quoted here 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 to 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 present case, according to the petitioner, the sale deed was presented before the respondent No.5 on 25.01.2021 which was neither admitted for registration nor any reason was assigned for refusal of the same. 8. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to present the sale deed executed by him in favour of the respondent No.6 before the respondent No.5 in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder. On presentation of the sale deed, the respondent No.5 shall either admit it for registration or refuse the same by passing an order in terms with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, 1908. 9. The said exercise shall be concluded by the respondent No.5 within two weeks from the date of presentation of the sale deed for registration of the same. 10. The petitioner is also given liberty to utilise the stamp duty said to have been paid for the said purpose on 25.01.2021. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.