Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J.
CWJC No. 2524 of 2018
(19.4.2019)
Rakesh Gupta – Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17 and 49 – Refusal to register document of land – Registrar is required to register document and he has absolutely no jurisdiction to enter into issue of title and refused to register document on ground of dispute as to title – Registrar directed to register document. (Paras 5 and 6)
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present application is that the Registrar instead of allowing registry, keeping the matter pending.
3. In the counter affidavit stand has been taken on behalf of the respondents that the land is not topo land i.e. unserveyed land and therefore, registration is not permissible.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the order of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department dated 7.6.2017 the Registrar has refused to register the document. The action of the Registrar cannot be faulted.
5. Mr. Dvivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn attention of this to the judgment reported in AIR 1989 Patna page 144 and paragraphs 3 to 5 of the aforesaid judgment is clinching on the point that Registrar is required to register the document and he has absolutely no jurisdiction to enter into the issue of title and refused to register the document on the ground of dispute as to the title.
6. Having regard to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench discussed hereinabove, the Court does not find the action of the respondents justified. Accordingly, the Registrar, Saran at Chapra is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
