Smt. Nayan Tara Tiwary @ Nayan Tara Devi aged 69 years, permanent resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Level Commit
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3382 of 2018 Smt. Nayan Tara Tiwary @ Nayan Tara Devi aged 69 years, permanent resident of Village-Latona, P.S.-Pathargama, Dist.- Godda (Jharkhand), presently residing at Rourkela, P.S.-Jhirpani, Dist.-Sundargarh (Odisha) represented through her power attorney holder Vikash Chandra Mishra, aged 59 years, son of late Abinash Chandra Mishra, resident of ‘Nikita Kunj’, Simaria Road, Jasidih, P.O. & P.S.-Jasidih, Dist.-Deoghar, PIN-814142 .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman District Level Committee, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar 3. Circle Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar 4. Incharge Officer, District Record-cum-District Legal Section, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivautar Baranwal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No.5284 of 2018 that it W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 3 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 and in that case, this Court also relied upon the judgment of the coordinate bench 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. “ as also the judgment 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 W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 4 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. 5. 6. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in the writ petition be allowed. 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. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 5 respondent-State that manipulation has also been made in Khatiyan and other revenue records kept in district records room and after such manipulation, the land has been sold to public at large. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that 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 placed before it, was authorized to issue land possession certificate. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the petitioner claims that plot no.23 within J.B. No.6 of Mouza-Dhoni is recorded in separate Dakhal Kiyari of Hari Mohan Dubey and Kali Prasad Dubey in purcha of the last survey settlement operation but the petitioner has not filed the purcha to prove her contention. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the material in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the similarly placed person 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 of that case contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018 and the W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 6 L.P.A. No. 396 of 2019 has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022. 8. 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, through a registered sale deed, then what is possessed by the vendor 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 09.09.2016 contained in Memo No. 205/Vidhi is not sustainable in law hence, the same be quashed and set aside. 9. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.09.2016 contained in Memo No. 205/Vidhi is quashed and set aside The District Level Committee headed by the respondent no. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, is directed to issue Land Possession Certificate, in respect of land as mentioned above in this judgment, in favour of the petitioner, within 15 days, from the date of receipt / production of copy of this judgment. 11.
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP II : Mr. Gaurang Jojodia, AC to GP II ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Though this Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with several prayers but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner abandons other prayers and confine her prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 1 order(s), direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 09.09.2016, a copy of which has been kept at Annexure-5 to this writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner, of the District Committee for disposal of the land and revenue work; regarding permission of sale of the land, in the notice published and circulated through daily newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ issued under the signature of respondent no.2 whereby and where under the permission for sale of land by the petitioner in favour of Nikita Pandey, measuring an area of 5062 sq. feet has been rejected without any valid reason. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner purchased the land bearing plot no. 23, Mouza-Dhauni, Thana No.201, J.B. No.6, Taluk-Rohani, Sub-division & Dist.-Deoghar from Meena Devi measuring an area of 5062 sq. feet vide registered sale deed dated 21.02.1990 of the office of Sub-Registrar, Deoghar. Meena Devi purchased the same from Kailash Prasad Agarwal and Kailash Prasad Agarwal purchased the same from the recorded tenant Hari Narayan Dubey who obtained the same by way of the land acquired in L.A. Case No.62 of 1963-64. The petitioner got her named mutated vide order passed in Mutation Case No.399/04-05 by the Circle Officer, Deoghar and thereafter the petitioner has been paying rent to the State. The petitioner desired to sell her said landed property to Nikita Pandey. The petitioner applied for granting permission before the Circle Officer, Deoghar in the month of April, 2016 but no permission/land possession certificate has been issued to the petitioner. In the meeting of the W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 2 District Committee on 03.09.2016 for disposal of the land and revenue matters, the application for permission of sale of the petitioner has been rejected by the Committee and the case of the petitioner is mentioned at Sl. No.3 of the decision of the Committee issued under the signature of the respondent no.2. The District Committee concluded that the land acquisition process of the original vendor Hari Narayan Dubey appears to be forged and the petitioner is trying to get advantage of the forged land acquisition process. The Deoghar Collectorate on 17.09.2016 issued a press release published in daily newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ indicating that the permission for sale of the land belonging to the petitioner has been rejected. On 04.10.2016, a notice has been issued to the petitioner stating that the land acquisition proceeding of L.A. Case No.62-1963-64 is suspicious hence she has been asked to file show cause as to why action should not be taken against her under the relevant provision of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the District Committee, Deoghar is erroneous and the same was done with non-application of mind. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permission of sale has been rejected without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which is not sustainable in law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon
Decision
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) W.P. (C) No.3382 of 2018 7