Tapen Sen, J.
1. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is that on account of an endorsement dated 19.3.2002 made by the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi the sale deed in question has not been registered and, therefore, prayer has been made inter alia in this writ application for issuance of an appropriate direction commanding upon the respondent No. 3 (District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi) to register the sale deed as according to the petitioner, the same complies with all the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. Although this case is fully covered by a Judgment delivered by this Court earlier in the case of Ritu Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., passed on 28.2.2002 in W.P. (C) No. 5421/2001 : reported in 2002 (1) JCR 397 (Jhr), yet it would be necessary to briefly state the facts involved herein.
3. The petitioner has stated that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are the owners of the properties which is the subject matter of this writ petition appertaining to M.S. Plot Nos. 1480 and 1676 measuring an area of 130.966 Kathas in village Kanka, P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Corresponding to Municipal Holding Nos. 1186, 1186/A, 2407 and 1186/B within the old Ward No. 7 (New Ward No. 17) of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. These respondents executed a sale deed through a power of attorney holder on 20.11.2001 in favour of the petitioner and presented the same for registration before the respondent No. 3.
4. According to writ petitioner, as has been stated in paragraphs 5 to 7, the sale deed complies with all the necessary procedures and formalities required under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
5. The petitioner has further stated that the aforementioned lands were sub-
jected to a proceeding under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Act vide Case No. 64/76 and a final publication was made in the Gazette on 24.9.1997 as a result whereof the properties forming subject matter of this writ petition/sale deed were allowed to be retained by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, The petitioner has further stated that on the basis of the aforementioned facts, the sale deed in question was presented for registration but the District Sub-Registrar made on endorsement in the following manner :
“Inadmissible under Section 46 of the C.N. Act, 1908 and read with the letter No. 568(29) dated 16.3.2002 of the Additional Collector, Ranchi and the letter No. 309 dated 16.3.2002 of the Circle Officer, Ranchi.”
6. According to writ petitioner, the aforementioned endorsement is illegal, without jurisdiction and totally contrary to the provision of the Indian Registration Act. 1908.
7. A counter affidavit in this case has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 which has been duly sworn by the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. At paras 7, 8 the said District Sub-Registrar, has stated as follows :
“7. That the said sale deed was not registered by the District Sub-Registrar on account of lack of clarity with regard to the nature of land. On examination of the official records, it came to notice that the said plot involved in the sale deed had been in dispute since a long period as to whether the plot is Khas Mahal or not and in this regard correspondence had been made between the Deputy Commissioner and District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi through letter No. 88(1) dated 9.8.1999 and letter No. 506 dated 12.11.1999.
8. That it is further submitted that the Khas Mahal land cannot be transferred without the prior permission of the State Government. Khas Mahal land is leased by the Government and the such lease hold land can not be transferred without the prior permission of the State Government. In this regard Circular 344 (R) dated 11.3.1993 of the Revenue Department can be perused.”
Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. II has stated that the District Sub-Registrar, Ranch has not registered the sale deed in question because the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has been asserting that the land in question is Khas Mahal land. In support of the same he has relied upon Annexures-B and C appended in the counter affidavit. However, Annexure-C which is a letter of the District Sub-Registrar addressed to the Deputy Commissioner as early as on 12.11.1999 informs the Deputy Commissioner in relation to an enquiry and states that for the period 1933 to 1955, there were no documents to establish that there had been any execution of any Indenture Lease under the provisions of the Bihar Government Estates Khas Mahal Manual.
8. In any event, the respondents have also not produced before this Court any document to establish that the land in question is a Khas Mahal land. Another important factor which must be taken into consideration is that had it been a Khas Mahal land, then where was the justification of the lands being subjected to a proceeding under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 vide Case No. 64/76 and also, where was the Justification on the part of the Government by issuing a Gazette Notification dated 24.9.1997 whereby and where-under, lands in question were allowed to be retained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. It would also be relevant to mention that from amongst the same family members, as has been stated at para 18, two sale deeds dated 3.7.1997 and 10.7.1997 were duly registered by the respondent No. 3 himself.
9. In any event, the matter relating to the manner/procedure of registration has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5421/2001 where it has been held/observed as follows :
“Thus, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Registration Act, it is clear that three basic ingredients are necessary and, they are that there must be a valid presentation, a valid execution and the stamp duty should be adequate. If these three ingredients are present then under the provisions of Section 35 the registering authority has no option but to register
the document because the word used therein is that the registering officer ‘shall register’ the document as directed in Sections 58 to 61 inclusive which relates to the procedure to be followed for admitting a document for registration.”
10. Apart from the aforesaid, this Court while delivering the aforementioned judgment also had taken note of a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144. In the said judgment their Lordships were complies with the statutory requirements and formalities as required under the Registration Act, is presented for registration, the registering authority is bound to register it and it is not for the registering authority to inquire and ascertain the title for its own satisfaction. Their Lordships have further said that under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1988, if the transfers 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 set an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and it is not of any concern to the registering authority.
11. In yet another judgment which appears to have a case of Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in ‘1999 (1) All PLR 103’ wherein an Hon’ble single Judge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court also took a similar view.
12. It would also be relevant to take note of a recent judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of E. Eshaque v. Sub-Registrar, Kozhikode and Anr.,
reported in AIR 2002 Kerala 128, wherein it has inter alia been held that the provisions of the Act do not empower the registering authority to satisfy the title/possession or encumbrances in respect of the property with respect to which registration is sought for. It has further been held that the authority can raise a doubt with regard to title and possession of the property only if the statute under which he is functioning authorises him to do so. In the absence of any such authorisation, the authority would not be justified in directing the parties to obtain a possession certificate from the cpmpetent authority to clear doubts regarding title and possession of the property.
13. In view of the premises aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the respon-
dents are directed to register the sale deed in accordance with law forthwith. All observations and findings given by this Court in the earlier case i.e. W.P. (C) No. 5421/2001 (Annexure-5) and the judgment of the Division Bench, reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144 shall govern this case also.
14. It is made clear that if it is found
that there is any statutory violation then
even at a subsequent stage, it will be open
to the respondents to take steps in accord
ance with law. It is also made clear that this
order will not stand in the way of such
proceedings that the authority may initiate
subsequently. It is also made clear that
mere registration of a document does not
confer any valid title unless the same is
proved in accordance with law, if and when