IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8874 of 2010
1. DR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BRAJ MOHAN PRASAD
SINGH R/O 'SONA-PHOOL' SUMBHA COMPLEX, WEST BORING
CANAL ROAD, P.S.- SRIKRISHNAPURI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.-
PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 60, RYECROFT ROAD,
LONDON, U.K., REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS REGISTERED
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI SHEO RAJ PRASAD SINGH,
S/O LATE GANESH PRASAD SINGH, R/O RAJENDRA NAGAR ROAD
NO.1, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY REGISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE REGISTRAR, REGISTRY OFFICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION OFFICE GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA
5. RAM GOPAL DAS CHELA OF MAHANTH LATE BHAGWAN DAS
R/O MUHALLA- SHEIKHPURA, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, IN THE
TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA
6. THE BIHAR REGLIGIOUS TRUST BOARD THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN, BIHAR, PATNA
-----------
06. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for
the State and for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 16.2.1010 passed by the District Sub-Registrar,
refusing to register the Title Deed for the lands
purchased by him from respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he is a bona fide purchase for value of the land in
question from respondent no.5. The registration
authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the question
of title and can only interfere with registration, subject
to the conditions laid down in the Registration Act. He
strongly relied upon a Division Bench order of this
Court reported in A.I.R. 1989 page 144 (Bihar Deed
Writers Association and Others. Versus State of Bihar
and Others) holding at paragraphs 3 and 5 as follows:-
2
“3. It appears to us that this
application can be disposed of at the
stage of admission inasmuch as the
point in issue is limited. In our view, if a
document otherwise complying with the
statutory requirements and formalities
is presented for registration, the
registering authority is bound to register
it. It is not for the registering authority
to enquire and ascertain the title to its
own satisfaction. Under the provisions of
the T.P. Act, 1888, if the transferor does
not have any title or has an imperfect
title to the property, the transferee on
transfer will either get no title or he will
get an imperfect title. This will be to the
prejudice of the transferee and is not of
any concern to the registering
authority.”
“5. Learned Advocate for the
respondents also referred to S. 68 of the
Registration Act, which empowers the
Registrar to superintend and control
Sub-Registrars. This power, in our view,
is an administrative power conferred on
the Registrar to exercise
superintendence and control over the
Sub-Registrars. The Registrar, in our
view, cannot in exercise of the power
under the section, direct the Sub-
Registrars not to register a document
presented for registration if the
document complies with the statutory
requirements and formalities.”
Learned counsel for respondent no.6
submits that there is a serious controversy with regard
to ownership of the lands claimed by the Mahant vis-à-
vis Bihar State Board of Religious Trust.
An order passed by a statutory authority not
by application of his own mind but on direction and
dictates of another apparent on basis of recitals
contained in the order is per se illegal as it amounts to
abdication of statutory powers. Presently, the Court
does not consider it necessary to go into the issues
3
sought to be urged from the Division Bench judgment.
The objection on behalf of respondent no.6
to the remedy of an appeal is best answered on the
ground that, if the order is without jurisdiction, or
suffers from patent arbitrariness, existence of
alternative remedy is no bar to the exercise of
discretion by the Writ Court.
In A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 16
(Commissioner of Police, Bombay Versus Gordhandas
Bhanji) the Court has held at paragraph 10 as follows:-
“17. It is clear to us from a
perusal of these rules that the only
person vested with authority to grant or
refuse a license for the erection of a
building to be used for purposes of
public amusement is the Commissioner
of Police. It is also clear that under R.
250 he has been vested with the
absolute discretion at any time to cancel
or suspend any license which has been
granted under the rules. But the power
to do so is vested in him and not in the
State Government and can only be
exercised by him at his discretion. No
other person or authority can do it.”
The order dated 16.2.2010 by the statutory
authority in no uncertain terms states that registration
was refused on basis of instructions issued to it.
The order dated 16.2.2010 is set aside. The
application stands allowed.
P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)