1. Rinku Devi, W/o Sri Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 40 years, 2. Puja Gupta v. 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 ------ 1. Rinku Devi, W/o Sri Mithilesh Kumar, aged about 40 years, 2. Puja Gupta, W/o Sri Prem Kumar, aged about 35 Years, Both residents of Gandhi Chowk, Rohini, P.O. Rohini, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar 4. The Additional Collector, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar 5. The District Sub-registrar, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar 6. The Circle Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar 7. The In-charge Officer, District Legal Cell, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar … Respondents For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6184 of 2014, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, issued a letter bearing No.195 dated 19.02.2016, copy of which has been kept at Annexure-2 of this Writ Petition; directing the concerned Circle Officers to issue Land Possession Certificate within a period of fifteen days for the purpose of registration 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 the 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 2 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 petitioners 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 has been kept at Annexure-4 of this Writ Petition, on the ground that the concerned documents of the land has been seized by the C.B.I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivautar Baranwal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (C) No.5284 of 2018 dated 14th of March, 2024 and submits that it is a settled principle of law that the registering authority is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document presented for registration nor can he decide whether the document presented for registration is executed by a person having title as mentioned in the instrument. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Puja Shanker vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (C) No. 5290 of 2018 dated 15.12.2018 paragraph-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 3 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 the property, he/she does so at his/her own risk.” 6. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Bibhuti Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P. (C) No. 528 of 2023 dated 12.12.2023 paragraphs-5 and 6 of which read 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.” Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Writ Petition, be allowed. 4 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 7. Learned counsel for the respondents- State 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 Basauri 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 F.I.R.s 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 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 Basauri Land is not correct. It is next submitted that according to Annexure-I filed by the petitioners, the sale- deed concerned reveals that the petitioners purchased the land in question from one Prabhavati Devi and in the recital of the said sale-deed, it has been mentioned that Prabhavati Devi purchased the land from Srimati Asha Sinha @ Madhavi Sinha but originally the land was one of Pranav Nath Mukherjee but how Pranav Nath Mukherjee got this land and from whom he got the land, is not clear from the recital of the said sale-deed. The petitioners have failed to file relevant documents to show that the land in question was acquired in favour of Rabindra Nath Banerjee vide L.A. Case No.3 of 1936-37. It is next submitted that according to revenue record, the land in question is Raiyati Non-transferable land and as the petitioners failed to file any relevant documents, hence, the same shows serious doubt about the acquisition 5 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 proceeding and since the acquisition proceeding is fake one, it cannot be relied upon. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the similarly placed petitioners namely Shivautar Baranwal and Puja Shanker who had filed application for Land Possession Certificate and which application was rejected, filed W.P.(C) No.5284 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.5290 of 2018 respectively 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 filed against the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.5290 of 2018 has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022. 9. 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 than 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 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Puja Shanker vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) and Shivautar Baranwal vs. The State of Jharkhand (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 is not sustainable in law hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No.01 dated 15.01.2018 is quashed and set aside. 11. The District Level Committee headed by the respondent No.3 is directed to issue Land Possession Certificate in respect of land as mentioned above, in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment in favour of the petitioners within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment.
Arguments
------ : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (MINES) I Mr. D. K. Roy, AC to SC (MINES) I Ms. Mohini Gupta, AC to SC (MINES) I ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order/decision dated 08.01.2018 contained 1 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018 in Memo No.01 dated 15.01.2018 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of this 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 petitioners 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 the petitioners purchased Basauri landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No.16/3634 “J” within Town Plan Plot Nos.1475A, Settlement Plot Nos.247 and 247A, admeasuring an area of 2521.60 sq. feet and constructed a house of 1500 sq. feet situated in Mouza Madarichak, Thana No.256, Subdivision, Sub-registry and District- Deoghar. Pursuant to the
Decision
12. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 7 W.P.(C) No.5409 of 2018