The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the registering authority to register a document complying with statutory requirements and the lack of legal force of workshop guidelines without legislative validation.

JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 24.05.2019 issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Saran at Chapra whereby and where-under he has refused to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on the pretext that the same is not covered by the order dated 19.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 2524 of 2018. The petitioner has further put a challenge to the proceedings of the workshop held on 03.06.2017, as contained in Memo dated 7.6.2017, which has been circulated by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna vide his letter dated 20.07.2017, amongst all the Collector-cum-District Magistrate/All District Sub-Registrar/All Sub-Registrar, with a direction to comply with the directions contained in Paragraph Nos. 2(Gha) and 3(Kha), which pertain to ban on sale/ purchase of Topo land and non-registration of such land, apart from ensuring compliance of other directions mentioned therein. Lastly, it has been prayed to direct the respondent authorities, more particularly the Respondent no. 5 i.e. the Sub-Registrar, Saran at Chapra to register the sale deed presented for registration on 22.5.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land situated in Ward No. 26, Circle No. 13, Holding No. 580, Thana No. 285, Tauji No. 3567, Jamabandi No. 497 ad-measuring approx. 11 katha and situated within the urban area of the District of Saran which forms part of the Survey of 1898-99 and there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s right, title and possession over the same. Since the petitioner was in need of money, he had entered into an agreement to sell with the prospective buyer on 10.05.2019 and had presented the same for registration before the Respondent No. 5, however, registration of the same was refused resulting in the petitioner approaching this Court by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 2524 of 2018, which was disposed of by an order dated 19.04.2019, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction to the Registrar, Saran at Chapra to register the said agreement to sell presented by the petitioner within a period of 15 days of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. Incidentally, the said order dated 19.04.2019 was challenged by the Respondents by filing an appeal bearing L.P.A. No. 226 of 2021, however, the same has also stood dismissed by an order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, hence it is the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the objection raised by the Respondent State to the effect that since the land in question is a topo land i.e. un-surveyed land, registration is not permissible, has been overruled by the Hon’ble High Court.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that thereafter, the aforesaid agreement to sell was registered by the Respondent no. 5, however, when the petitioner approached for registration of the Conveyance deed/sale-deed with regard to the same land, agreement to sell whereof had already stood registered by the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 5 refused to register the same on the pretext that the issue of registration of the conveyance deed in question was not covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 2545 of 2018, as upheld in LPA No. 226 of 2021. This is how the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that merely on account of certain illogical, illegal and perverse discussion having taken place in a workshop held on 3.6.2017, under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, the Registrars/ Sub-Registrars of various districts are illegally refraining from registering the deeds/ instruments being presented before them for the purposes of registration, despite the fact that the said minutes of meeting dated 3.6.2017, as contained in