WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
Shakuntala Devi ... ... Petitioner [In W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003]
1. Sardar Harjinder Pal Singh;
2. Sardar Manmeet Singh ... ... Petitioners [In W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003]
- VERSUS -
1. State of Jharkhand;
2. District Registrar, Ranch;
3. District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi ... Respondents [In Both Writ Petitions.]
4. Mrs. Harbans Kaur @ Harbans Kaur Saluja
... ... ... Proforma Respondent [In W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003]
4. Manohar Lal Chourasia;
5. Sant Lal Chourasia
... ... ... Proforma Respondent [In W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003]
......
Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amareshwar Sahay
......
For the Petitioner [In WP(C) 2563 of 2003]: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Petitioner [In WP(C) 3262 of 2003]: Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate.
For the State [In WP(C) 2563 of 2003] : Mr. R. Krishna, Sr. S.C. - I
For the State [In WP(C) 3262 of 2003] : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. - II
: Ms. Nehala Shramin, Advocate.
C.A.V. On 23/07/2009 PRONOUNCED ON 10/08/2009
Amareshwar Sahay, J. Since common question of law is involved in both the writ
petitions and therefore, both the writ petitions were taken up and
heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners namely Shakuntala
Devi in W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003 and Sardar Harjinder Pal Singh as well
as Sardar Manmeet Singh in W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003 have prayed for
issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no.
3 - the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi to register the Sale Deeds
executed and presented for registration by the proforma respondents
i.e. Mrs. Harbans Kaur @ Harbans Kaur Saluja in W.P.(C) No. 2563 of
2003 and Manohar Lal Chourasia as well as Sant Lal Chourasia in
W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003, in favour of the writ petitioners, which has
been withheld by the respondent no. 3 - the District Sub-Registrar,
Ranchi illegally and arbitrarily.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
2
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
3. The facts in short in W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003, are stated
here-in-below:-
i. The writ petitioner Shakuntala Devi intended to purchase
5 Kathas of land in R.S. Plot No. 1151, Sub-Plot No. 47 under
Khata No. 122, Holding No. 689/A, Khewat No. 4, Village -
Hesal, Thana no. 202, P.S. - Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi,
from the present owners Mrs. Harbans Kaur (Proforma
Respondent), wife of Sardar Ranbir Singh.
ii. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid land originally
belonged to M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. @ Ranchi Enterprises
Limited. The said property was transferred by the erstwhile
owner M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. @ Ranchi Enterprises
Limited by a registered Deed No. 6212 dated 12 th December,
1958 by way of permanent, heritable, transferable lease in
favour of Sardar Ranbir Singh, son of Sardar Madan Singh
vide Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.
iii. Sardar Ranbir Singh constructed a house in the year 1958
- 59 which bears holding no. 6891 A. Sardar Ranbir Singh
gifted the aforesaid land to his wife Mrs. Harbans Kaur by
registered Deed of Gift No. 13385, dated 22 nd August, 1974
vide Annexure-2.
iv. Mrs. Harbans Kaur, i.e. the Proforma Respondent,
presented a Deed of sale before the District Sub-Registrar,
Ranchi for registration of transfer of the aforesaid land in
favour of the petitioner. The District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, has
kept the matter of registration of Deed of Sale pending on
the ground that the land Plot No. 1151 is recorded in the
name of Ranchi Enterprises in the Urban Land Ceiling records.
v. Further case of the petitioner is that the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force on 1st
April, 1976 and the lands transferred before the said date by
Ranchi Enterprises are not affected by the said Act.
vi. According to the petitioner, a portion of the said Plot No.
1151, which had been transferred by Ranchi Enterprises, prior
to 1976, have been transferred through the registered Deed
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
3
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
recently. Such as Santu Lal has transferred a portion of Plot
No. 1151 to Ashok Kumar Rai by Registered Sale Deed No.
7761 dated 14.09.1993. Similarly, one Sardar Hari Munjal
transferred a portion of Plot No. 1151 to Smt. Lazwanti Ghai
vide registered Sale Deed No. 6397 dated 13.08.1998 and
both the aforesaid lands originally belonged to Ranchi
Enterprises.
vii. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Sub
Registrar, Ranchi has neither registered nor passed any final
order with regard to the Deed of Sale presented by Mrs.
Harbans Kaur (Proforma Respondent) in favour of the
petitioner and he has kept the matter pending for more than
1 ½ years.
4. A Counter Affidavit has been filed in the instant case i.e.
W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003 on behalf of the respondents. The main plea
has been taken therein that the Sale Deed executed by Mrs. Harbans
Kaur (Proforma Respondent) is not legally registrable because of the
fact that the so called Vendor had not acquired any valid right, title
over the property. The transferee of the Proforma Respondents himself
had no transferable right over the properties and as such, the transfer
made in favour of Harbans Kaur (Proforma Respondent) did not vest
any valid title in her favour and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled
to any relief. It is also stated that the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings
being U.L.C. No. 500/1996 is still pending in respect of the land of M/s.
Ranchi Enterprises which include also the land of Plot No. 1151. The
registered Sale Deed No. 6212 dated 12.12.1958 by M/s. Ranchi
Enterprises in favour of Sardar Ranbir Singh did not create any
transferable lease in his favour . Under the law, a Lessee has simply a
right to hold the lease hold property and he can not transfer the land
by way of sale or gift creating title in favour of transferee and
therefore, the Sale Deed presented by the Proforma Respondent in
favour of the petitioner has rightly been withheld and not been
registered.
5. The facts in short in W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003, are stated
here-in-below:-
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
4
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
i. The writ petitioners intended to purchase 4 Kathas of land
in R.S. Plot No. 1151, Sub-Plot No. 305/7 under Khata No. 122,
Khewat No. 4, Village - Hesal, Thana No. 202, within P.S. -
Sukhdeo Nagar, District - Ranchi with a house standing
thereon bearing Holding No. 702/V2 from the Proforma
Respondents namely Manohar Lal Chourasia as well as Sant
Lal Chourasia. The aforesaid land also originally belonged to
M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Limited @ Ranchi Enterprises Limited.
ii. The property intended to be purchased was transferred
by the erstwhile owner i.e. M/s. Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. by a
registered Deed No. 1043 dated 27.01.1970 by way of
permanent, heritable, transferable lease in favour of Sri
Ramdeva Lal, son of Sri Rakjumar Lal Agarwal.
iii. The purchaser Ramdeva Lal constructed a house thereon
bearing Holding No. 702/V2 and he transferred the land
purchased by him to Sarder Amarjit Singh, son of Late Sardar
Makhan Singh by registered Deed of Sale No. 8473 dated 4th
July, 1984.
iv. Sarder Amarjit Singh transferred his aforesaid land in
favour of Manohar Lal Chourasia as well as Sant Lal
Chourasia (Proforma Respondents) by registered Deed of
Sale bearing No. 7574, dated 3rd September, 1987.
v. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid two
Proforma Respondents presented a Deed of Sale on
24.08.2001
before the Respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Sub-
Registrar, Ranchi for registration of the transfer of the
aforesaid land in favour of the petitioners. But the District Sub-
Registrar, Ranchi has not registered the Sale Deed and has
kept the matter pending on the ground that Plot No. 1151 is
recorded in the name of Ranchi Enterprises in the Urban Land
Ceiling Records.
6. A Counter Affidavit has been filed in the instant case i.e.
W.P.(C) No. 3262 of 2003 on behalf of the respondents. The main plea
has been taken therein that the proceeding under the Land Ceiling
Act being U.L.C. Case No. 596 of 1996 is still pending in respect of the
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
5
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
land of Ranchi Enterprises which includes also the land of Plot No.
1151. The registered Sale Deed No. 1043, dated 27.01.1970, allegedly
executed by M/s. Ranchi Enterprises in favour of Ramdeo Lal did not
create any transferable lease in his favour and therefore, he has no
power to transfer the land in question in favour of anybody
whatsoever creating title in favour of the said transferee and
therefore, during the pendency of the proceedings under the Urban
Land Ceiling Act, 1976, the respondent no. 3 has rightly withheld
registration of the Sale Deed and did not register the same.
7. From the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it
appears that they have not denied the facts stated in the para-16 of
W.P.(C) No. 2563 of 2003 that the Sale Deed with regard to transfer of
a portion of Plot No. 1151 in favour of Ashok Kumar Rai has been
registered vide Sale Deed No. 7761 on 14.09.1963. It has also not been
denied about the registration of the Sale Deed with regard to another
portion of Plot No. 1151 in favour of Lazwanti Ghai on 13.01.1998.
However, it has been replied in the counter affidavit that the
registration of any earlier Sale Deed does not create any right in
favour of the Proforma Respondents.
8. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners, by relying on the decision of Single Bench of
this Court in the case of Ritu Singh and others Vs. State of Jharkhand
and others reported in 2002(1) JCR 397 as well as another decision of
the another Single Bench in the case of Nageshwar Thakur and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2003(2) JLJR 230 has
submitted that it has already been held by a Single Bench of this
Court that where there is valid execution, valid presentation and
payment of adequate duty, then the registering authority has no
option but to register the document presented before it for
registration under the provisions of Section 35 of the Registration Act.
It appears that the learned Single Jude, in the aforesaid
case has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of Patna
High Court in the case of “Bihar Deed Writers Association and others,
Petitioners v. State of Bihar and others, Respondents” reported in AIR
1989 Patna 144 wherein it has been held that if a document otherwise
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
6
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
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 be will get an imperfect
title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any
concern to the registering authority.
In the case of Nageshwar Thakur and others Vs. State of
Jharkhand and others (Supra) also, a Single Bench of this Court held
that there is no provision in the Indian Registration Act or the Rules
thereunder empowering the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to hold an
enquiry in the question of Title of Vendor before registration of the
document. The registering authority has only to see whether the
document is duly stamped to the valuation given in the documents.
9. Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 speaks about the
enquiry before registration by the Registering Officer and Section 35 of
the said Act lays down the procedure on admission and denial of
execution respectively.
On bare perusal of these two provisions, it appears that the
same do not empower the registering authority to question the title of
the Vendor.
10. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in the case of
“Bihar Deed Writers Association and others, Petitioners v. State of Bihar
and others, Respondents” reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144 has clearly
held that 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 be will get an imperfect title. This
will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to
the registering authority.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2563 OF 2003
7
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3262 OF 2003
11. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid two decisions, I hold that
the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi has no jurisdiction to withhold/ refuse
registration of the Sale Deed presented by the Proforma Respondents
of both these two writ petitions in favour of the writ petitioners.
12. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are allowed and the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. District Registrar, Ranchi and District Sub-
Registrar, Ranchi respectively, are hereby directed to register the Sale
Deeds in question presented by the Proforma Respondents in favour
of the Writ Petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J)
Jharkhand High Court,
Ranchi. Dated 10th August, 2009
RC/