Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Bhim Munda, son of late Shiv Charan Munda – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1204 of 2018
Decided on : 30–01-2024
[FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION] - [Writ Petition under Article 226] - [Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, Section 46; Indian Registration Act; Specific Relief Act, Section 31; Jharkhand Municipal Act, Section 436] - [The court discussed the authority of the Deputy Commissioner to annul a registered sale deed, emphasizing that such power lies with civil courts under the Specific Relief Act. The court highlighted that the sale deed was void ab initio due to the vendor's lack of title at the time of sale, rendering the annulment order of the Deputy Commissioner inconsequential. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling that a purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings post-notification.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Tribe and ex-army personnel, purchased land in 2002 without knowledge that it had been acquired by the government in 1961. The Deputy Commissioner annulled the sale deed in 2018, leading the petitioner to challenge this order, claiming lack of opportunity to be heard and asserting that the annulment was beyond the Deputy Commissioner's authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to annul the sale deed, as such power resides with civil courts. It also determined that the sale deed was void ab initio since the vendor had no title to the land at the time of sale, making the annulment order inconsequential.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to annul the registered sale deed and whether the sale deed was valid given the prior government acquisition of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the annulment of the sale deed by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid as the Registrar does not possess the power to annul registered documents. Furthermore, the sale deed was void ab initio due to the vendor's lack of title, meaning the petitioner had no rights to the land regardless of the annulment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner annulling the sale deed but upheld that the petitioner had no rights to the land due to the void nature of the sale transaction.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer inter alia for setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 which has been mentioned at serial no. D of the prayer portion of this writ petition.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not press the prayer B and C of this writ petition.
4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is a member of Schedule Tribe and is ex-army personnel. He purchased a land which was acquired by the Government prior to his purchase from his vendor in the year 1961 without knowing that such acquisition made by the Government of 2 ½ khata of land which roughly comes to 3.75 decimals though in paragraph no.6 of this writ petition, erroneously, it has been mentioned that the area of the land purchased is 10 decimals. Before purchase of the said land, the petitioner sought necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as per Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The petitioner came to learn by the said order dated 02.02.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ranchi annulled the registered sale deed of the petitioner. The petitioner only after that came to know that the land in question along with other lands were acquired for the AG Office Employees Co-operative House Construction Society in the year 1961 and on the basis of the application made by the District Sub-Registrar for annulment of the registered sale deed of the petitioner by the respondent no.7 over which the petitioner has constructed his house for an area admeasuring 10 decimals, recommendation was made for carrying the proceeding of annulment.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is bad in law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also came to know that upon acquisition of the land by the Governor of Bihar for the AG Office Employees for the housing scheme vide notification dated 03.02.1961, transfer was made between Government of Bihar and AG Office Employees Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd. in the year 1964 but before that in the year 1963, land was transferred in the name of late Awadhesh Kumar, the deceased father of the private respondent no.7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar under the Indian Registration Act does not have power to annul a document which has been registered and the only procedure for annulment is in terms of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.3103 of 2020 in the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases dated 11.01.2024 wherein the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Registrar has no power to annul the registered sale deed and the State Government cannot by an executive order confer such a power on the Registrar and submits that it is only the civil court which can cancel/annul an instrument which has been registered. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 207 wherein, it was held that only in a civil court the cancellation of the registered document can be declared and not otherwise. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer ‘D’ as made in this writ petition be allowed.
6. Learned AAG-II on behalf of the State relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
AI
The authority to annul a registered sale deed lies with civil courts, and a sale deed executed without the vendor having title is void ab initio, conferring no rights to the purchaser.
The main legal point established is that incorrect registration location renders a deed voidable, not void ab initio, and only a recorded tenure holder can maintain a suit for cancellation of a sale ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the previous sanction of the Registrar for any sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift of immovable property belonging to a public tru....
The Registrar does not possess the authority to cancel registered sale deeds, and such powers cannot be conferred by executive order, as this would infringe upon statutory provisions governing regist....
Civil Law - Validity of Sale deed - A voidable document is one which remains in force until set aside and such a document can be set aside only by a competent civil court. A suit for that purpose wou....
The court held that disputes over property ownership and cancellation of deeds should be resolved in civil court, not through writ petitions, especially when involving deceased parties and complex fa....
The court established that the restoration of a registration order must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to notice and the opportunity to be heard, especially when title d....
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
