JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018, copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of the writ petition issued under the signature of the respondent no.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in minutes of meeting of District Level Committee, Deoghar, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of land possession certificate for registration of land has been rejected by surpassing the letter no.195 dated 19.02.2016 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. 3. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner purchased a homestead land under jamabandi no. 12/3432 measuring 2531 sq. feet situated at Mouza Tharidulampur, Thana No. 403, Sub-Division, Sub-registry, Dist.-Deoghar from his vendor Rajballav Prasad. The land was initially acquired in favour of Raj Bahadur Mangtulal Tapuria vide LA. Case No. 23 of 1945-46 of the court of Sub-division Officer, Deoghar coupled with delivery of possession. Thereafter the land was transferred to different persons vide registered sale deeds without any objection from the respondent authorities. Pursuance to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 6184 of 2014, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter kept at Annexure-2 dated 19.02.2016 directing the concerned circle officer to issue land possession certificate within a period of 15 days for the purpose of registering of land failing which the registering authority shall register the sale deeds presented for registration. 4. It is asserted by the petitioner that surpassing the said order, the respondent no.3 in terms of letter no. 371 dated 13.06.2016 constituted a committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Additional Collector, Government Pleader and the circle officer for issuance of land possession certificate for registration of land and to deal with other revenue matters. The petitioner made an application along with supporting documents before the respondent no.7 for issuance of land possession certificate for the registration of the aforesaid land but the same was rejected in an arbitrary manner vide the said minutes, the copy of which is kept at Annexure-4 of this writ petition. 5. The petitioner made an application along with supporting documents before the respondent no.7 for issuance of land possession certificate for the registration of the aforesaid land but the same was rejected in an arbitrary manner vide the said minutes, the copy of which is kept at Annexure-4 of this writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled principle of law that registering authority is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document presented for registration nor he can decide whether the document presented for registration is executed by a person having title as mentioned in the instrument. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Puja Shanker vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 5290 of 2018 dated 15.12.2018, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:- 6. This court in catena of judgments has held that under the Registration Act, 1908 there are only three basic requirements i.e., (a) there must be valid presentation; (b) valid execution; and (c) adequate stamp duty and if all the said three conditions are complied with, there is no option with the registering authority but to register the document. A Division Bench of this court in L.P.A No. 321 of 2012 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Pritindra Narayan Roy & Ors.) has held that one cannot get title merely by registered sale deed and it is an instrument only of transfer of what is possessed by the vendor and nothing more than that. The title is not created only by sale deed but it is created in favour of the person from whom he purchased the property subject to foundational fact that the seller should be the owner and should have saleable right. It is also a well-known principle “buyers beware” which also indicates that if a buyer purchases any property without enquiring about the title of the property, he/she does so at his/her own risk. 7. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bibhuti Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 528 of 2023 dated 12.12.2023, paragraph no. 5 and 6 of which reads as under:- “5. 7. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bibhuti Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 528 of 2023 dated 12.12.2023, paragraph no. 5 and 6 of which reads as under:- “5. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of LPA No.58 of 2019, in the case of the State of Jharkhand vs. Kusumlata Devi and Ors. and allied cases submits that in the said LPA, the State of Jharkhand challenged the order passed by the writ court, to the District Level Committee, to issue the Land Possession Certificate, in favour of the respondent of that case; but the said LPA was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court by holding that on satisfying the requirements under the Registration Act, 1908 and upon production of the document as indicated in Notification dated 19.02.2016; the registering authority cannot refuse, registration of any document subject to prohibitions under the Registration Act, 1908. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court, in the case of Arvind Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 42, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this court, has reiterated the consistent view taken by this court that under the Registration Act, 1908, there are only three basic requirements: (a) there must be a valid presentation (b) valid execution and (c) adequate stamp duty and if all the said three conditions are complied with, there is no option with the registering authority but to register the document. and observed that one cannot acquire title by mere registration of a sale deed in his favour and sale deed is just an instrument, only to transfer what is possessed by the vendor and nothing more than that and went on to direct the District Level Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, in that case, to issue Land Possession Certificate in favour of the petitioner, and submits that the prayer for issuing Land Possession Certificate in favour of the petitioner for Plot No. 153, area 2 acres, Mouza Baijnathpur, Thana No.583, Police Station Mohanpur, district Deoghar be allowed.” and submits that registering authority cannot refuse registration of any document subject to prohibition under the Registration Act, 1908. 8. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in the writ petition be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submits that fraud and manipulation has been made by the land mafia of Deoghar district in the revenue record and parti land has been made “acquired Basouri land” and has been sold out by playing fraud. The District Bar Association, Deoghar filed P.I.L. before this Court and C.B.I. has been ordered to investigate which is going on and several FIRs have also been lodged against the wrongdoers. When the matter came to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar he stopped issuance of land possession certificate and constituted a District Level Committee which after due verification of the document pleaded before them, was authorized to issue land possession certificate. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that Khatiyani plot numbers shown by the petitioner as acquired Basouri Land is not correct and the zamabandi No. 12/3432 shown by the petitioner in Town Plan J.B. number, comprised within Town Plan Plot No.1093, 1094, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1191, 1192, 1193 and 1194. The petitioner has not filed the zamabandi of khatiyani plot. The petitioner has not filed the zamabandi of khatiyani plot. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that according to the revenue record (khatiyan), the land in question is raiyati non-transferable land and as the petitioner failed to produce any relevant document i.e. order of acquisition, award prepared by the court, award amount received by the Khatiyani raiyat either before the Committee or before this Court hence, the same shows serious doubt regarding the acquisition proceeding and it seems that acquisition proceeding is fake one and it cannot be relied upon more so at present no garden/bagan or house exist over the land in question and as all the records and khaiyan is in the custody of C.B.I. as such it could not be ascertained that what is the jamabandi number of above mentioned khaityani plot or that has been acquired or not. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that as the petitioner has not filed any document of L.A. case in which the above plots were acquired and without perusal of Register-II and other relating documents, land possession certificate could not be issued. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the District of Deoghar which comes under Santhal Pargana, only basouri land is saleable and the registration authority ought to see whether the land put up for registration is basouri or not. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after perusal of the material in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the similarly placed petitioner namely Puja Shanker who had filed application for land possession certificate and which application was rejected, filed W.P.(C) No.5290 of 2018 and the coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018 and the L.P.A. No. 396 of 2019 has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022. 11. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in view of the settled principle of law; as already discussed above, since law is well settled that one cannot get a better title then what is possessed by the vendor through a registered sale deed and such purchaser of a sale deed is expected to verify the right, title and interest of the vendor and also in view of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Puja Shanker vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018 cannot be sustainable in law hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018 is quashed and set aside 13. The District Level Committee headed by the respondent no. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, is directed to issue Land Possession Certificate, in respect of land as mentioned above, in favour of the petitioner, within 15 days, from the date of receipt / production of copy of this judgment. 14. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.