JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for declaration that the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registry Office, Jamua, District-Giridih has no authority under law and jurisdiction to register a unilaterally executed deed of cancellation of a sale deed without the knowledge and consent of other parties to the sale deed and further prayer is made for quashing the unilaterally executed deed of cancellation bearing no. 4775 dated 28.07.1994, executed by Punia Devi and Aitwari Mandal and registered by the Sub-Registrar, Sub Registry Office, Jamua, District- Giridih, whereby, the registered sale deed bearing no.10070 dated 27.07.1977 has been unilaterally cancelled without the knowledge and consent of Dhalia Devi in whose favour the sale deed was executed.

3. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the facts of this case are that Punia Devi along with one Sri Aitwari Mandal executed a registered sale deed no.10070 in favour of Dhalia Devi (daughter of Punia Devi) on 27.07.1977 in connection with the property of Khata no. 38 of 2007, Plot no. 807/1 having area of 2.70 and ½ acres under Mouza Patardih pargana Kharagdiha, Thana Jamua under Sub-Registry Jamua, District-Giridih and of Khata no. 51 area 46 and ½ decimals under Mouza Kathwara, pargana Kharagdiha, Thana Jamua under sub-registry Jamua, District- Giridih and Khata no. 33 Khewat no. 1 having area 60 decimals Mouza Kathwara, pargana Kharagdiha, Thana Jamua under sub-registry Jamua, District-Giridih and Khata No. 64 Plot no. 312 area 4.23 and ½ acre Mouza Patardih pargana Kharagdiha, Thana Jamua under sub-registry Jamua, District-Giridih on consideration amount. Dhalia Devi in turn sold the aforesaid property by way of two registered sale deed (50% each) one in favour of Bhola Mandal, who is the father of Nunamani Mandal (petitioner) vide registered sale deed no. 332 dated 11.01.1982 and another in the name of Puran Mandal and Sita Ram Mandal, both sons of Dhalia Devi vide registered sale deed no. 333 dated 11.01.1982. Pursuant to the above sale deed in favour of Bhola Mandal, who is the father of the petitioner, he came in possession of the property and still continues to be in possession of the property. She further submitted that mutation of the property was done in favour of Bhola Mandal (father of the petitioner) and rent receipt was also issued in his favour. The name was also entered in Register-II as maintained by the circle office. Punia Devi died on 30.08.1996 and Aitwari Mandal died in the year 2010. She further submitted that the petitioner and his family members were in peaceful possession of the said property vide registered sale deed no. 332 dated 11.01.1982, but all of a sudden the petitioner came to know that one Probate Case No. 5 of 2010 in connection with will dated 23.08.1994 has been filed before the learned District Judge, IV, Giridih in connection with the property covered by the sale deed no. 332 and accordingly the petitioner filed intervention petition in the said Probate Case No. 5 of 2010, but the said intervention petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2014. She further submitted that in the said probate case, aforesaid sale deeds were filed along with intervention petition, but the court below without considering the certified copy of the registered sale deed, wrongly rejected the intervention petition to the effect that no document was filed. She further submitted that rejection order of intervention petition in probate case dated 20.09.2014 has been challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6563 of 2014, which is still pending. She further submitted that the petitioner for the first time came to know that although the application of probate case was ad