1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (the respondent no. 2) to consider the petitioner’s application filed for removal of his land appertaining to Khata No. 154, Plot No. 2606, measuring an area of 42 decimals situated at village – Bonga, P.S. No. 37, District – Hazaribagh from the prohibited list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, “the Act, 1908”) as introduced vide the Bihar Amendment Act, 6 of 1991 which has also been adopted by the State of Jharkhand.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s said land is included in the prohibited list and in spite of his representation seeking removal of the same from the said list, the respondent authorities are sitting idle in the matter.

3. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Basant Nahata reported in (2005) 12 SCC 77 as well as the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLIne Jhar 2209.

4. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Basant Nahata (Supra.) wherein the constitutionality of Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 as amended by the State of Rajasthan as well as the notifications issued by it in terms thereof were under consideration. Their Lordships have held in the said case that there is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 1908 which can be said to be related to morality or public policy. Even, the preamble or any other provision of the Act, 1908 does not provide any guideline for construing Section 22-A of the said Act. What is “opposed to public policy” would be a matter depending upon the nature of transaction. The pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record would be relevant so as to enable the court to judge the concept as to what is for public good or in the public interest or what would be injurious or harmful to the public good or to the public interest at the relevant point of time as contradistinguished from the policy of a particular government.

5. It has further been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the doctrine of “public policy” is vague and uncertain and it is not possible to define the said doctrine with precision at any point of time. It is not for the executive to fill the grey areas as the said power vests in the judiciary and whenever interpretation of the concept “public policy” is required to be considered, it is for the judiciary to do so, however in doing so, even the power of the judiciary is quite limited.

6. Their Lordships have also held that a thing which itself is so uncertain, cannot be a guideline for anything or cannot be said to be providing sufficient framework for the executive to work under it. Moreover, essential functions of the legislature cannot be delegated to the executive and it must be judged on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 246 of the Constitution. Thus, only the ancillary and procedural powers can be delegated to the executive and not the essential legislative point. Finally, Section 22-A of the Act, 1908 as inserted by Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1976 (Act No. 16 of 1976) has been held to be ultra vires being violative of Articles 14 and 246 of the Constitution of India.

7. I have also perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (Supra.). In the said case, the Bench has struck down section 22-A of the Act, 1908 as well as the consequential notification no. 1132 issued on 26.08.2015 and has set aside all the orders passed by the Sub-Registrars or the officials of the Registration Department pursuant to issuance of the notification dated 26.08.201