IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Shivautar Baranwal, s/o late Baldeo Baranwal - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 5284 of 2018
Decided On : 14-03-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for quashing order of Deputy Commissioner rejecting land possession certificate application - The court reiterated that the registering authority must register documents if valid presentation, execution, and stamp duty are met - The petitioner's application was rejected arbitrarily, violating established legal principles. (Paras 2, 5, 11)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Requirements for registration - The court emphasized that title is not created merely by registration; it is contingent upon the vendor's ownership and the buyer's due diligence. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a land possession certificate for property purchased, which was denied by the Deputy Commissioner despite compliance with legal requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order, directing the issuance of the land possession certificate within 15 days.
Issues: The main issue was whether the registering authority could refuse registration based on title irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registering authority must register documents if all legal requirements are satisfied, and the title is contingent upon the vendor's ownership.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the District Level Committee was directed to issue the certificate.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for quashing the order dated 08.01.2018 contained in Memo No. 01 dated 15.01.2018, copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of the writ petition issued under the signature of the respondent no.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in minutes of meeting of District Level Committee, Deoghar, whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of land possession certificate for registration of land has been rejected by surpassing the letter no.195 dated 19.02.2016 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand.
3. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner purchased a homestead land under jamabandi no. 12/3432 measuring 2531 sq. feet situated at Mouza Tharidulampur, Thana No. 403, Sub-Division, Sub-registry, Dist.-Deoghar from his vendor Rajballav Prasad. The land was initially acquired in favour of Raj Bahadur Mangtulal Tapuria vide LA. Case No. 23 of 1945-46 of the court of Sub-division Officer, Deoghar coupled with delivery of possession. Thereafter the land was transferred to different persons vide registered sale deeds without any objection from the respondent authorities. Pursuance to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 6184 of 2014, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter kept at Annexure-2 dated 19.02.2016 directing the concerned circle officer to issue land possession certificate within a period of 15 days for the purpose of registering of land failing which the registering authority shall register the sale deeds presented for registration.
4. It is asserted by the petitioner that surpassing the said order, the respondent no.3 in terms of letter no. 371 dated 13.06.2016 constituted a committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Additional Collector, Government Pleader and the circle officer for issuance of land possession certificate for registration of land and to deal with other revenue matters. The petitioner made an application along with supporting documents before the respondent no.7 for issuance of land possession certificate for the registration of the aforesaid land but the same was rejected in an arbitrary manner vide the said minutes, the copy of which is kept at Annexure-4 of this writ petition.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled principle of law that registering authority is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document presented for registration nor he can decide whether the document presented for registration is executed by a person having title as mentioned in the instrument.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Puja Shanker vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 5290 of 2018 dated 15.12.2018, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:-
6. This court in catena of judgments has held that under the Registration Act, 1908 there are only three basic requirements i.e., (a) there must be valid presentation; (b) valid execution; and (c) adequate stamp duty and if all the said three conditions are complied with, there is no option with the registering authority but to register the document. A Division Bench of this court in L.P.A No. 321 of 2012 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Pritindra Narayan Roy & Ors.) has held that one cannot get title merely by registered sale deed and it is an instrument only of transfer of what is possessed by the vendor and nothing more than that. The title is not created only by sale deed but it is created in favour of the person from whom he purchased the property subject to foundational fact that the seller should be the owner and should have saleable right. It is also a well-known principle “buyers beware” which
AI
The registering authority must issue a land possession certificate if all legal requirements under the Registration Act are met, regardless of title irregularities.
Registration of a sale-deed cannot be denied if it is duly executed and meets legal requirements, regardless of the nature of the land.
Mere dispute of title would not ordinarily constitute a reason for refusal to register sale deed.
Mere dispute of title would not ordinarily constitute a reason for refusal to register sale deed.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
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.
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
A Registering Authority must safeguard against unlawful property transfers and cannot autonomously confirm title based on assertions of adverse possession without a competent court's declaration.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.