JUDGMENT : (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) 1. This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (A) For the direction upon the respondent no. 6 Anti-Corruption Bureau to register FIR against these District Sub-registrars who have deliberately with a criminal motive just for earning an illegal money has contravened the directives of the Revenue Department and of the District Sub-registrar and have become carrier of illegal transaction of the government land and that all those lands whose transfer is prohibited even in the CNT Act also. And also submit the status report after custodial of these District Sub Registrars who are posted in various District Sub-Registrar office by the directives given by the DC, IG Registrar and the Revenue Secretary, they are indulging in mass corruption in transfer of the government land. (B) For the direction upon the respondent no. 1 to file an affidavit before this Court explaining as to how much money these District Sub Registrar have earned while they transfer the land of khata no. 383 situated in Pundag area of Ranchi and even after repeated directions given by the Government these lands have been transferred to different persons and it has been done by the District Sub Registrar by taking huge bribe. (C) For the direction upon the respondents specially respondent no. 1 and 2 to institute a high level committee which will enquire into the registration of the land of the prohibited list prepared by government of Jharkhand as the land belong to the state government and in its entirety these are public land and used only for public purposes but the District Sub Registrar like Ranchi, Hehal, Hinoo and Kanke all are registering the land to the private people out of that list. (D) For the direction upon the respondents to submit before this Hon'ble Court as to how much land has been left out of the government land whose thana no. and khata no. (D) For the direction upon the respondents to submit before this Hon'ble Court as to how much land has been left out of the government land whose thana no. and khata no. mentioned in the prohibited list and what action they have taken till date against those who have registered the land from the prohibited list without adopting due process or without any authority of law contravening the notification of the government notification to the government revenue department issued by the sign of the secretary and it has been informed to all the Circle Officer, IG registration, and Principle General Accountant Office, Jharkhand so that these authorities may not contravene the directive of the government as the land like the nature of Gair Majurwa Khas land Gair Majurwa Malik land, Forest Land, Kaiser-e-hind Land and Jungle Jhar land whose name finds place in the notification of 2015 and subsequently the IG registration in the year 2019-20 has strictly warned the District Sub-Registrar that they should not contravene the directives of the Revenue Department while registering the land and they should also verify whether the land belongs to the State of Jharkhand whose name find place in the prohibited list or land like the nature of Gair Majurwa Khas land Gair Majurwa Malik land, Forest Land, Kaiser-e-hind Land and Jungle Jhar land etc. (E) For the direction upon the respondent to remove the encroachments from khata no. 383 where the entire colony in the name of Ilahi Nagar has been constructed in front of the District Authorities who have closed their eyes and allowed such encroachers to construct their houses and in these houses most of them are either from the Bangladesh origin or Rohingya background. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a citizen of India and has no personal interest, directly or indirectly, save and except public interest. 3. According to the petitioner, the State Government had not bothered in the past to protect public lands and so, encroachers of public lands have constructed hundreds of houses in Government lands in Khata No.383 Gairmazarua Malik. He contends that senior officers in Jharkhand are responsible for taking out the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and certain individuals are infringing the directives of the Government with the help of District Sub-Registrar, Circle Officers, etc. 4. He contends that senior officers in Jharkhand are responsible for taking out the land from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and certain individuals are infringing the directives of the Government with the help of District Sub-Registrar, Circle Officers, etc. 4. It is contended that taking out the lands from the Government List would cause enormous loss to the public at large as it would result in loss of revenue and the Government will be deprived of lands in implementation of their own schemes. 5. Petitioner contends that once there is a list for prohibited properties notified by the State, it is important to enquire under what circumstances these lands were allowed to be enjoyed by the private persons. 6. According to the petitioners, District Sub-Registrar, CO, CI and Karmchari, etc connive with the land mafias and make such registration of prohibited lands possible. 7. The petitioner has impleaded the following parties:- (i) The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. (ii) The Revenue Secretary, State of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. (iv) The IG Registration, Engineer Hostels, HEC Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Dhurwa, Jharkhand. (v) District Sub Registrar, Katchari Chowk, Near R.R.D.A. Office, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. (vi) The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Audrey House, Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University Campus, P.S.- Gonda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. (vii) The District Sub Registrar Office of the Registry, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. The stand of the official respondents 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Palamau has filed a counter affidavit contending that action cannot be taken under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the absence of sanction against an officer employed in the Government and without any direction from the Government to conduct such enquiry/investigation. 9. The District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, had filed a counter affidavit stating therein that there was a notification issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, on 19.05.2015 laying down the norms to be considered while making registration and the Sub-Registrars normally make enquiry regarding properties/lands in respect of which documents are presented before him for registration after verifying that they are not in the prohibited list. 10. 10. It is contended that under certain circumstances, the Registering Authority can refuse registration of any document of transfer of land, but a blanket order/direction containing no specific description of the property, cannot be a ground for not registering a document presented for registration. 11. It is also stated that the land in Khata No.383 in respect of which the petitioner had made an allegation actually was acquired by late Manglu Singh on a settlement by his landlord Prabal Maharaja Diraj Kumar Bada Lal Kandarpnath Sahdeo, Palkot Estate, on 08.01.1940 and rent-receipts were also issued in the name of Manglu Singh and the District Sub. Registrar did not find any contravention of the notification of 2015 and registered the same and no enquiry was found warranted regarding the same. 12. The Under Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, has also filed a counter affidavit referring to the notification issued on 26.08.2015 publishing a list of certain government lands whose registration is prohibited as being against public policy. It is also stated that if it is established that the land comprised in a document presented for registration is government land/Gairmazarua land, etc., Registering Authority can refuse registration of such document of transfer, but a blanket order/direction containing no specific description of property would not be a ground for not registering the document presented for registration. 13. Reference is also made to the Minutes of the Meeting dt. 19.10.2020 chaired by the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, directing that lands in the nature of Gairmazarua, Aam and Khas and other government lands have to be placed in the prohibited list which is to be uploaded in the portal of NGDRS. 14. According to the said respondent, the Inspector General of Registration, Government of Jharkhand had issued a memo on 16.03.2021 for entry of the land which is in the nature of Government Land, Forest Land and other lands to be included in the National Generic Document Registration System. 15. Reference is also made to a notification dt. 13.05.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand for cancellation of illegal/doubtful jamabandi running in the entire State of Jharkhand after proper enquiry. 16. It is stated that the same was again reiterated in another Memo dt. 10.07.2018 issued by the Department of Land Reforms, Revenue and Registration, Government of Jharkhand. 17. It is stated that Notification No.1132 dt. 16. It is stated that the same was again reiterated in another Memo dt. 10.07.2018 issued by the Department of Land Reforms, Revenue and Registration, Government of Jharkhand. 17. It is stated that Notification No.1132 dt. 26.08.2015 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, was in exercise of power conferred under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which had declared that registration of all government lands is against public policy. The intervention application 18. There is an intervention application I.A. No.8240 of 2023 filed by 3 rd parties seeking intervention in the matter. The impleadment application 19. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No.2773 of 2025 to implead 07 parties including 05 retired government officials. Consideration by the Court 20. The whole writ petition of the petitioner is based on the presumption that there are certain government lands of various categories, in which certain registrations have occurred, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. 21. The basis of the claim that certain lands are government land is a notification said to have been issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, which states as under: 22. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as added by the State of Bihar vide Bihar Act 6 of 1991, which is also operative in the State of Jharkhand, states: “22-A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy.— (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.” 23. As regards the power conferred on the registering authority under sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 is concerned, the similar provision introduced by the State of Rajasthan and notification issued thereunder were considered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata , [(2005) 12 SCC 77]. 24. In State of Rajasthan (1 supra), the Supreme Court held that though sub-section (1) of Section 22-A enables the State Government to issue a notification declaring that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to the public policy, but the concept of “public policy” is vague and uncertain and there is no guideline provided in the Act. Whenever interpretation of the concept “public policy” is required to be considered it is for the judiciary to do so and in doing so, even the power of the judiciary is very limited. This exclusive judicial function cannot be delegated by the legislature to the executive and it would be violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. It held: “50. … …A doctrine which is so vague or uncertain, in our opinion, thus, cannot and does not provide any guideline whatsoever. Furthermore, the executive while making a subordinate legislation cannot be permitted to open new heads of public policy in its whims. The provisions of the Act, therefore, do not lay down any guidelines to render it constitutional. … … … 61. Hence, it becomes amply clear that it is not possible to define public policy with precision at any point of time. It is not for the executive to fill these grey areas as the said power rests with judiciary. Whenever interpretation of the concept “public policy” is required to be considered it is for the judiciary to do so and in doing so even the power of the judiciary is very limited. 62. Even for the said purpose, the part dealing with public policy in Section 23 of the Contract Act is required to be construed in conjunction with other parts thereof. 63. A further question which arises is whether having regard to the doctrine of separation of powers what is essentially within the exclusive domain of the judiciary can be delegated to the executive unless policy behind the same is finally laid down. 64. A thing which itself is so uncertain cannot be a guideline for any thing or cannot be said to be providing sufficient framework for the executive to work under it. Essential functions of the legislature cannot be delegated and it must be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution. It is, thus, only the ancillary and procedural powers which can be delegated and not the essential legislative point. 65. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants herein that the State, being higher authority, having been delegated with the power of making declaration in terms of Section 22-A of the Act, would not be abused is stated to be rejected. 65. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants herein that the State, being higher authority, having been delegated with the power of making declaration in terms of Section 22-A of the Act, would not be abused is stated to be rejected. Such a question does not arise herein as the provision has been held to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 246 of the Constitution. 66. The contention raised to the effect that this Court would not interfere with the policy decision is again devoid of any merit. A legislative policy must conform to the provisions of the constitutional mandates. Even otherwise a policy decision can be subjected to judicial review. (See Cellular Operators Assn. of India v. Union of India and Clariant International Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India.) The Supreme Court therefore upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court (1 supra) which had declared Section 22-A of the Act as inserted by the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1976 being Act 16 of 1976 (identical in language to the Section 22-A inserted by the Bihar Act 6 of 1991) as unconstitutional and consequently the notifications as contained in Annexures 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the writ petition in that case were also quashed. 25. In the light of the above decision, Section 22-A as applicable in the State of Bihar is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution. Consequently, the notification no. 1132 dt. 26.8.2015 and other similar notifications/ memos issued thereunder by the Executive Government cannot have any sanctity. 26. In a batch of cases titled Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association and Another v. State of Jharkhand and others , W.P.(C) No.5088 of 2018 and batch dt. 1.5.2025 (DB) , this very Bench has struck down Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 introduced by the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991, applicable in the State of Jharkhand following the decision in State of Rajasthan (1 surpa) and has also struck down the Notification No.1132 dt.26.8.2015 issued by the State Government mentioned above. 27. Therefore, the whole basis of the plea of the petitioner that by virtue of Section 22-A and the said notification, the conduct of respondents be probed and they ought to be punished, has gone. 28. 27. Therefore, the whole basis of the plea of the petitioner that by virtue of Section 22-A and the said notification, the conduct of respondents be probed and they ought to be punished, has gone. 28. We may also point out that this Court asked the counsel for the petitioner to refer to the provisions of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 which are still applicable in the State of Jharkhand, and show us any provision in it which enables a Sub- Registrar/ Registration department official to refuse registration on the basis of a dispute regarding title. 29. In this regard, we may refer to Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 which enumerates the situations in which a document can be refused registration. It states: “19. Refusal of duly presented document-A duly presented document can be refused for registration under following circumstances:- (i) If the description of identification of the property as defined in Rule-5 has not been given as required under the Act and Rules. (ii) If the executant denies execution (Section 35). (iii) If the executant fails to appear and admit execution (Section 34). (iv) If the person by whom, the document purported to have been executed, were dead and his representative or assign deny execution (Section 35). (v) If the person purporting to have executed the document appear to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic (Section 35). (vi) If the Registering Officer is not satisfied by the identity of the person appearing before him claiming that he has executed the document (Section 35): Provided that a document shall not be refused under this clause unless the party fails to prove his identity within the time allowed under Section 34. (vii) If the Registering Officer is not Satisfied of the truth of the allegation that a person who executed the document is dead (Section 35): Provided that a document shall not be refused for registration under this clause unless the party fails to prove the death of the executant within the time allowed in Section 34. (viii) If the admitting agent’s power-of-attorney has not been made in accordance with the Act or if an alleged representative or assign has failed to prove his status (Section 35). (ix) If the parties fail or refuse to mention the additions of executants and claimants. (viii) If the admitting agent’s power-of-attorney has not been made in accordance with the Act or if an alleged representative or assign has failed to prove his status (Section 35). (ix) If the parties fail or refuse to mention the additions of executants and claimants. (x) If the prescribed fee or fine has not been paid under Section 25, 34 and 80 of the Act. (xi) If a document is said to be executed by a deaf and dump person who does not understand the transaction nor express himself by signs or in writing. (xii) Whether a person admits his signature to a document but states that he has signed the paper when it was blank and no document was written thereon. (xiii) If a deed of surrender of lease which claimed exemption from stamp duty, because the original lease was so exempt, is presented and the party refuses to produce the original lease or a certified copy of it in order to satisfy the Registering Officer that the document is either properly stamped or not liable for stamp duty. (xiv) Where any or some of the representatives of a deceased executant deny execution while others admit it, registration of the document shall be wholly refused subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Act. (xv) On refusal or neglect to appear on an appointed date after service of summons under Section 36 of the Act.” 30. In the above Rule, there is no provision conferring power on the Sub. Registrar/ Registration department official to refuse registration of any document on the ground that there is a dispute about title of the property. The counsel for the petitioner was also unable to show us any other provision except Section 22-A and the notification dt. 26.8.2015, which have been struck down by this Court. 31. The Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 referred to the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, conferring power on the Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make rules, and held that there is no power conferred on the registering authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer. It also held that there is no provision in the Registration Act conferring power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established. It declared that the registering authority is not concerned with the title of the executants and he has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. It declared that even if an executant executes a sale-deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, registering officer cannot refuse to register a document if all procedural compliances are made and a necessary stamp-duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. It also held that under the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, it is not the function of Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he seeks to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject of making procedural compliances as mentioned in the rules framed under the Registration Act, the document must be registered. It held that the execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer. 32. We may further point out that in this matter, no credential of the petitioner as a “public-spirited person” has been mentioned in the writ petition, and except one transaction filed along with the writ petition, details of no other transaction have been mentioned. 33. In fact, the persons likely to be affected if this writ petition is to be allowed would be a large number but belatedly an implead application is filed to implead three private citizens and some retired Government officials. 34. It is noteworthy to mention that in the writ petition, there is no pleading as to which land is said to have been encroached by which party, though the petitioner had filed a list of certain properties in Khata No.119, Hehal Block of Ranchi. This is a print-out from the website jharbhoomi.nic.in. 35. 34. It is noteworthy to mention that in the writ petition, there is no pleading as to which land is said to have been encroached by which party, though the petitioner had filed a list of certain properties in Khata No.119, Hehal Block of Ranchi. This is a print-out from the website jharbhoomi.nic.in. 35. He has also filed a prohibited plot list mentioned on the National Generic Document Registration System, Department of Land Resources, Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development. Copy of one sale- deed dt. 31.03.2018 executed by one Bhuneshwar Singh in favour of Heeralal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. has been filed. 36. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Public Interest Litigation itself is an abuse of process of court and is filed with a mala fide intention, probably with an intent to blackmail the State Government officials and private citizens for unlawful gain. 37. We therefore see no reason to allow I.A. No.8240 of 2023 filed by 3 rd parties seeking intervention in the matter or I.A. No.2773 of 2025 filed by the petitioner to implead certain persons. Both these applications are therefore rejected. 38. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be paid by the petitioner to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), within four weeks.