IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
(19.9.2022)
CWJC Nos. 7445 with 9593 of 2004
Ashok Kumar : Petitioner
(in both)
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Respondents
(in both)
Indian Registration Act,1908–Sections 30(1), 30(2) & 28 r/w Registration and other related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 with Bihar Amendment (Bihar Act 6 of 1991)–Registration of Lease–(i) necessity of taking prior permission of the competent authority prior to transfer of the land–the original lease deed bestows upon the lessee all the rights, easements and appourtenances, permanently from generation to generation with full rights of transfer of the leased property and all buildings and structures erected thereon–thus, the lease does not mandate seeking prior permission of any authority of the Govt. of Bihar–hence, the impugned order to reject the petitioner's case is contrary to the terms and conditions of the original lease deed–Deposit of 50 percent of the market value for the purpose of transfer of the purpetual lease– whether required–from a bare perusal of lease deed in question, it is found that no such pre-condition has been mentioned therein and since the lease in question is a perpetual lease with full rights to the lessee to transfer from generation to generation, the ground of non-deposit of the 50% of the market value to reject the case of the petitioner is non est and contrary to law–Whether transfer deed, executed and registered at Bombay, is recognized by the Govt. of Bihar–Section 30 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, as it then existed prior to being omitted by the Central Act 48 of 2001, permits Registrar of a district including a presidency town to receive and register any document within whose sub-district or district the whole of the property to which the document relates–the petitioner has also deposited differential amount of stamp duty as provided under Govt. of Bihar notifications dated 18.07.2002 and 22.08.2002—Section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act was valid till 31.12.2001 in the presidency town of Mumbai and the registration of the sale deed in question at Bombay is on 27.12.2001–impugned orders are unsustainable and quashed. (Paras 11, 12, 15 to 18)
2014) SCC online Del 3297, 2009 (4) PLJR 454, CWJC No. 9720 of 2001 D/- 24.03.2001–Referred.
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–Regard being had to the commonality of the controversy in both the aforesaid writ petitions, it was thought apposite to hear them analogously and accordingly, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed off by the present singular order.
2. The first writ petition i.e. CWJC No, 7445 of 2004 has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.02.2004 passed by the Collector, Patna, whereby and whereunder, the prayer made by the petitioner for considering him as the original lessee, has been rejected, whereas the second writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 9593 of 2004 has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.08.2004, contained in Memo dated 31.07.2004, whereby the petitioner has been informed that while resuming the Khas Mahal Land settled vide temporary lease deed, bearing plot no. 52, Block-C, admeasuring an area of 5 katha and 8 dhurs, along with the structures made thereon, in light of the order contained in letter no. 786 dated 10.07.2004 of the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, it is ordered to take the said land along with the construction made thereon into Government's possession, thus the possession of the same be handed over to the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar within one month. It is thus apparent that the land in question is the same in both the aforesaid two cases.
3. For the sake of convenience the facts of the first case would be referred to hereinafter. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the State of Bihar settled a Khas Mahal land admeasuring 5 katha and 8 dhurs, appertaining to plot no. 52, Block-C, Halka no. 5, Thana no. 20A, situated at Kadamkuan in the name of one Sadashiv Prasad by means of a registered deed of perpetual lease dated 15.11.1942 (registered on 17.11.1942) and the lessee was given an absolute right of transfer as also there was no need to take any kind of permission from the State Government before transfer or sale of the same, as is apparent from the registered sale deed annexed as Annexure-1 to the second writ petition. The aforesaid Shri Sadashiv Prasad as also his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi died in the year 1976, whereafter one Shri P.R. Prasad and his two brothers became the rightful owner of the entire house/plot in question and their names were mutated, subsequently after the death of the aforesaid Sadashiv Prasad and Smt. Saraswati Devi. It has been further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eldest daughter of late Sadashiv Prasad and Smt. Saraswati Devi namely, Malti Devi had filed a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 77 of 1980 before the Ld. Court of Subordinate Judge, Patna for partition of the house in question, situated at Patna and other parental properties situated at Buxar, claiming 1/8th share therein. The said Malti Devi died subsequently & was substituted by one Ajit Kumar and his brothers as plaintiffs in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 77 of 1980. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1986- 87, the ground floor of the house in question was let out to one M/s. Atul Carrier for commercial purposes, whereafter a complaint was made in this regard and upon enquiry by the government authorities, the allegation was found to be true, as such a proposal for cancellation of the lease deed was made by the Collector, however, one time relaxation was given to the effect that if the existing lessees wanted to take a fresh lease, they could take the same on payment of penal rent and salami at the market rate, whereupon one of the sons of late Sadashiv Prasad namely Shri P.R. Prasad had engaged in correspondence with the Collector, Patna and vide letter dated 18.09.2001, the said P.R. Prasad had informed the Collector, Patna that he was ready to enter into a fresh lease with respect to the aforesaid land in question but since no notice has been issued with regard to cancellation of the lease in question, cancelling the lease deed, wi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Article 254 of the Constitution of India in resolving the conflict between the laws enacted by the State Legislature and the Par....
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.