JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent No.2 to forthwith register the sale-deed presented by the vendee, namely, Kumar Prabhakar in connection with the land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 36, Plot No. 115, Mouza-Karnibag, Thana No. 584, Circle- Deoghar, District-Deoghar, measuring an area of 5993.856 sq. ft. for which requisite fee and stamp duty have already been paid and all the required documents as per the checklist have been submitted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5685/2018 before this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue the LPC of the said land in favour of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2019 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to make endeavour for disposal of the application dated 28.02.2018 which was pending before the L.P.C Committee so as to dispose of the same within a reasonable period preferably within three weeks as per the time schedule provided under the relevant administrative order. Since the said order of this Court was not complied by the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to file Cont. (Cvl.) Case No. 775/2019. However, during pendency of the said contempt application, the respondents issued the LPC to the petitioner for the land in question. It is further submitted that one Shekhar Chaterjee being the owner of 1/5th share of the land measuring an area of 68.50 Decimals (29969.28 sq. ft.) out of the total area of 3.44 Acres was in possession of the same during his life time. After death of Shekhar Chaterjee, his only heir/wife, namely, Purobi Chatterjee executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner conferring him the right to manage the said property and also to take steps for sale of the same. One Kumar Prabhakar intended to purchase part of the said land measuring an area of 13.76 Decimals (out of the total area of 68.50 Decimals) and contacted the petitioner for the said purpose. Accordingly, the sale-deed was drafted and was presented by Kumar Prabhakar for registration before the respondent No.2 on 18.07.2021. Requisite fee and stamp duty were paid as well as all the required documents were also submitted for the same. Accordingly, the sale-deed was drafted and was presented by Kumar Prabhakar for registration before the respondent No.2 on 18.07.2021. Requisite fee and stamp duty were paid as well as all the required documents were also submitted for the same. However, the respondent No.2 neither admitted the said sale-deed for registration nor assigned any reason for not registering the same. The petitioner represented the respondent No.2 on this issue on several occasions, however, the same were not considered which has compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 3. Mr. A. K. Thakur, learned A.C to A.A.G-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that at present he has no instruction as to for what reason the sale-deed presented by the vendee has not been registered by the respondent No.2. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the vendee-Kumar Prabhakar presented the sale-deed for registration of 13.76 Decimals of land on 18.07.2021. He claims to have paid the required registration fee and stamp duty as well as submitted the required documents as per the checklist. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after presenting the sale-deed for registration before the respondent No.2, he has neither registered the same nor has assigned any reason for refusing it. The provisions of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’) would be relevant in this regard, which 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. (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 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. Since the vendee-Kumar Prabhakar has presented the sale-deed before the respondent No.2 for its registration on 18.07.2021, the respondent No.2 cannot keep the registration of the same pending. Thus, without entering into the merit of the case, the respondent No.2 is directed either to admit the sale-deed presented before him by the vendee 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.2 is directed to conclude the said exercise within a period of two 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.