Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. This writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“A. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding the respondents for the following:—

I. To release the Raiyati land of the petitioner bearing Khata No. 3, Khesara No. 2109, Circle Office- Harsidhi, Thana No. 156 from the restriction / block list having Restriction No. 18122446000001 which has wrongly been kept in the restriction list vide order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Motihari, East Champaran (Respondent No. 5) for the purpose of transfer of land.

II. To direct the Respondent No. 4, the Sub Registrar, Motihari, East Champaran, to register the sale deed presented before him considering the fact that the land bearing Khata No. 3, Khesara No. 2109 is the Raiyati land of the Petitioner and free from any encumbrance which has illegally be put in restriction / block list.

B. To any other relief/reliefs to which the Petitioner for the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper.”

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that land bearing Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 2109 situated at Village- Murarpur, P.S.+Anchal- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran, is the raiyati land of the petitioner against which land possession certificate and rent receipt have been issued in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid land is the purchased land of the petitioner which was purchased from Khatiyani Raiyat namely Gauri Shankar Rai in the year 2000. It is next submitted that in the year 2019, the petitioner was in need of some money, hence he offered to sell his land bearing Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 2109, Area 31.68 decimal to Santosh Kumar Prasad son of Late Ramdeo Prasad, resident of Village + P.O. + P.S.- Turkaulia, District- East Champaran, who accepted the same and after receiving the consideration money, the petitioner submitted the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Mothari, East Champaran (Respondent No. 4) on 10.01.2019, who refused to register the land on the sale deed on the ground that the aforesaid khata and plot has been restricted vide Restriction Sl. No. 18122446000001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a document otherwise complies with the statutory requirements and formalities is presented for registration, the registering authority is duty bound to register it.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144 to submit that the Registrar is under obligation to register the document presented before him and he does not have any jurisdiction to enter into the issue of title at the stage of registration. He has also relied upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Satyendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others bearing C.W.J.C. No. 9937 of 2020 dated 11.02.2022.

5. Learned counsel representing the State of Bihar opposing the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ application and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner contends that since the land in question was enlisted under the restriction list in the Registration Office, the matter was referred to the District Level Committee for verification. The District Level Committee verified the matter and found that land in question is recorded in R.S. Khatiyan as “Bakast Malik (Bettiah Raj)” and as such the District Level Committee resolved in its meeting dated 30.07.2022 to request the Manager Bettiah Estate to clarify its claim over the plot in question and refused to register the land in the sale deed in question.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, noted above, in the background of the aforesaid case, I find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that if a do