JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer inter alia for setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 which has been mentioned at serial no. D of the prayer portion of this writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not press the prayer B and C of this writ petition. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a member of Schedule Tribe and is ex-army personnel. He purchased a land which was acquired by the Government prior to his purchase from his vendor in the year 1961 without knowing that such acquisition made by the Government of 2 ½ khata of land which roughly comes to 3.75 decimals though in paragraph no.6 of this writ petition, erroneously, it has been mentioned that the area of the land purchased is 10 decimals. Before purchase of the said land, the petitioner sought necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as per Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The petitioner came to learn by the said order dated 02.02.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi annulled the registered sale deed of the petitioner. The petitioner only after that came to know that the land in question along with other lands were acquired for the AG Office Employees Co-operative House Construction Society in the year 1961 and on the basis of the application made by the District Sub-Registrar for annulment of the registered sale deed of the petitioner by the respondent no.7 over which the petitioner has constructed his house for an area admeasuring 10 decimals, recommendation was made for carrying the proceeding of annulment. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is bad in law. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is bad in law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also came to know that upon acquisition of the land by the Governor of Bihar for the AG Office Employees for the housing scheme vide notification dated 03.02.1961, transfer was made between Government of Bihar and AG Office Employees Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd. in the year 1964 but before that in the year 1963, land was transferred in the name of late Awadhesh Kumar, the deceased father of the private respondent no.7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar under the Indian Registration Act does not have power to annul a document which has been registered and the only procedure for annulment is in terms of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3103 of 2020 in the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases dated 11.01.2024 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Registrar has no power to annul the registered sale deed and the State Government cannot by an executive order confer such a power on the Registrar and submits that it is only the civil court which can cancel/annul an instrument which has been registered. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 207 wherein, it was held that only in a civil court the cancellation of the registered document can be declared and not otherwise. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer ‘D’ as made in this writ petition be allowed. 6. Learned AAG-II on behalf of the State relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 , paragraph no. 6. Learned AAG-II on behalf of the State relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society, Jaipur & Ors. reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 , paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:- “13. There can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser, subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification in respect of the land, cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, and can only claim compensation as the sale transaction in such a situation is void qua the Government. Any such encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer of the land in question, that is made after the issuance of such a notification, would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the Government. (Vide Gian Chand v. Gopala [ (1995) 2 SCC 528 ], Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan [ (1996) 1 SCC 334 : AIR 1996 SC 520 ], Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society [ (1996) 11 SCC 229 ], Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [ (1997) 1 SCC 35 ], Meera Sahni v. Lt. (Vide Gian Chand v. Gopala [ (1995) 2 SCC 528 ], Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan [ (1996) 1 SCC 334 : AIR 1996 SC 520 ], Jaipur Development Authority v. Mahavir Housing Coop. Society [ (1996) 11 SCC 229 ], Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [ (1997) 1 SCC 35 ], Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (2008) 9 SCC 177 ], Har Narain v. Mam Chand [ (2010) 13 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 793] and V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer [ (2012) 12 SCC 133 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 136 : JT (2012) 12 SC 260].)” (Emphasis supplied) and submits that there is no quarrel that by the time the petitioner purchased the land from his vendor, the land was already acquired in the name of Governor of Bihar hence, obviously the vendor of the petitioner did not have any title to pass on to the petitioner and the sale deed is void qua the Government and a void document need not be declared as such and hence even it is assumed that the Deputy Commissioner in capacity of the registrar has not the power to cancel the sale deed concerned still, such an order is an innocuous and inconsequential order because otherwise also, the petitioner cannot have any right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of the sale deed concerned executed in his favour; as undisputedly, as his vendor was also not having any right, title and interest over the said land; certainly no right, title and interest in respect of the land in question has accrued to the petitioner. 7. It is next submitted by learned AAG-II that the facts of this case having different from the facts of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra) wherein the sale deed which was cancelled by the Registrar was not void ab-initio as in this case hence, the ratio of that case is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 adopts the entire argument of the State Counsel and besides, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that the contention of the petitioner that the cancellation order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed behind his back is out and out false as it is evident from the order no.7 dated 06.12.2017 in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 itself that the petitioner appeared in that case through his Advocate. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that in this writ petition the deed by which the father of the respondent no.7 acquired title by way of transfer in the year 1963 cannot be questioned as the same involves disputed question of facts hence, the prayer nos. B & C as made in the writ petition by the petitioner challenging the said transfer of the case land in favour of late Awadesh Kumar, the deceased father of the respondent no.7 cannot be questioned more so because as the petitioner admittedly has purchased only 3.75 decimals of land or 2 ½ khata of land, they have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition of 34 decimals of land by the father of the respondent no. 7. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that assuming for the sake of argument that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar has no jurisdiction to pass the cancellation order of the sale deed but in view of the fact that the transfer of the land subsequent to acquisition of the land by the Governor of Bihar undisputedly, having not conferred any right, title and interest upon the petitioner in respect of the land in question; still setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18, will certainly cannot confer any right, title and interest in respect of the case land in favour of the petitioner. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that as the vendor of the petitioner himself filed a petition for restoration of the possession of the land in question in their favour vide S.A.R. Case No.11/984 of 1974 hence, the vendor of the petitioner cannot claim to be in possession of the land in question. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 that as the vendor of the petitioner himself filed a petition for restoration of the possession of the land in question in their favour vide S.A.R. Case No.11/984 of 1974 hence, the vendor of the petitioner cannot claim to be in possession of the land in question. More so because though the said S.A.R. Case No. 11/984 of 1974 was allowed but on the appeal vide S.A.R. Appeal No.6R 15/1981-82 having been allowed no right, title and interest remains with the vendor of the petitioner and the said appellate order passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 6R 15/1981-82 has attained finality as the same has not yet been challenged. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 submits that the respondent no.8 came into picture only after the petitioner filed I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 with a prayer for allowing the petitioner to incorporate an additional prayer to keep in abeyance, the further proceeding in connection with U.C. Case No. 19 of 2018 and operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.8 that the construction made by the petitioner over the land in question is an unauthorized construction and the respondent no.7 lodged a complaint with the respondent no.8- Ranchi Municipal Corporation, basing upon which U.C. Case No.19 of 2018 was registered and after hearing the parties vide order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi in exercise of the powers conferred in paragraph no. 17 of Jharkhand Building bye-laws, building plan has been cancelled under the power conferred under Section 436 of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.8 that by adopting the arguments of learned AAG-II that as undisputedly before purchase of the land by the petitioner from his vendor in the year 2002, his vendor was not having any title as the land was undisputedly acquired much before that in the year 1961 hence, the title of the case land has been vested upon the Government of Bihar and subsequently to the A.G. Office Employees Cooperative House Construction Society. It is then submitted that thus, the said order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi in U.C. Case No. 19 of 2018 need not be interfered with. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.8 that the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in U.C. Case No.19 of 2018 by the respondent no.8 is an appealable order and the provision of appeal has been provided under Section 442 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, hence, otherwise also, there being an alternative remedy and the disputed questions of facts having being involved in this case, this writ petition ought not to be allowed. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed facts remains that by the time the petitioner purchased the land from his vendor in the year 2002 his vendor was not having any title over the land in question as the same having been acquired much prior in the year 1961 by the government. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society (supra), the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner is void qua the Government. Unlike the facts of the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra) this is not a case of impersonation of the executant of the sale deed rather the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was a void one as the vendor of the petitioner undisputedly was not having any title on the date of execution of such sale deed. Under such circumstances, no right, title and interest has accrued to the petitioner by virtue of such sale deed; so the transaction of sale between the petitioner and his vendor; was a void transaction, which is not required under the law be declared as such being an ab-initio void transaction. So under such circumstances, the consequence of the cancellation of the said sale deed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is only of academic interest because otherwise also, the same does not confer any right, title and interest upon the petitioner. 11. So under such circumstances, the consequence of the cancellation of the said sale deed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is only of academic interest because otherwise also, the same does not confer any right, title and interest upon the petitioner. 11. In view of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases (supra) wherein the coordinate Bench has held that the Registrar has no power to annul the sale deed no. 12269 of the year 2002 certainly, the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 annulling the sale deed no.12269 of the year 2002 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. 12. But so far the prayer made in Serial no. A of the writ petition contending therein that the petitioner was not noticed before passing the order dated 02.02.2018 in the said Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 is concerned, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 by drawing attention of this Court to the order sheet of the said proceeding, it appears that the petitioner appeared through his Advocate in the said Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 hence, this being the disputed question of facts, this Court do not intend to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was never noticed before passing of the said order dated 02.02.2018. 13. So far as the I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 is concerned, as this Court has already held that even without the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in the said Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 dated 02.02.2018 otherwise also, the sale deed no.12269 of 2002 being a void one as the vendor was not having any title at the time of executing the sale deed certainly, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief against the respondent no.8 as prayed for in I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 hence, I.A. No. 4750 of 2018 being without any merit is dismissed. 14. The petitioner if so advised may avail appropriate remedy; if any available. 15. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly and consequently the interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. 14. The petitioner if so advised may avail appropriate remedy; if any available. 15. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly and consequently the interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, I.A. No. 10813 of 2023 stands disposed of being infructuous.