The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the District Sub-Registrar to explain a suspicious sale deed. The court observed that the Sub-Registrar lacks authority to cancel registered sale deeds but did not dismiss the petition on merits due to pending criminal prosecution.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3682 of 2005
Smt. Kiran Devi @ Kiran Singh......... Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors…….... Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.R.Prasad
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1-4 : Mr. V.K.Prasad, SC (L & C) For Respondent Nos. 5-6 : Mr. K.P.Deo, Advocate
6./01.7.2014 Heard the parties.
This application has been filed for quashing of the notice dated 25/06/2005, issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar (Respondent No. 4), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been called upon to submit explanation with respect to a sale deed No. 3733/3415 dated 05/12/1994, as it appeared to the authority to be suspicious. The said notice has been challenged only on the ground that the District SubRegistrar has absolutely no authority to issue such kind of notice for cancelling the sale deed though he may have jurisdiction in the matter relating to provision contained in Section 81 of the Registration Act, but for that the petitioner is not concerned and that the District Sub-Registrar will have no authority to issue notice for cancelling the sale deed, which has already been registered.
As against this, Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 & 6, submits that necessity of issuing notice has arisen for the reason that one suit for specific performance had been filed by the petitioner. The litigation continued for years together. Suddenly, one fine morning, the suit was withdrawn on the pretext that the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the mother of the plaintiff. Thereupon, the respondents applied for certified copy of the said sale deed, which was supplied and then by looking to that the respondents felt that some foul
play has been played in getting the sale deed registered as some interpolation was there in the sale deed itself. Therefore, an application was filed before the District Sub-Registrar, who made an inquiry and found certain foul play had been played in the matter and under the circumstances the notice has been issued which, in the facts and circumstances, needs not to be interfered with as simply explanation has been sought for from the petitioner.
Upon it, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State has not been coming forward to state as to for what purpose the notice has been issued. Therefore, the petitioner has presumed that the notice has been issued for the purpose of cancelling the sale deed, which the District Sub-Registrar does not have any authority to cancel the sale deed, which has already been registered.
Further, it has been submitted that so far as the matter relating to the prosecution is concerned, the petitioner upon being prosecuted is facing trial though the order taking cognizance has been challenged before the Revisional Court.
It has been well settled that the District Sub-Registrar or the Registrar does not have any authority to cancel the sale deed.
Under the circumstances, the notice issued on 25/06/2005, if it relates to the cancellation of the sale deed, is bad. So far the matter relating to the prosecution is concerned, the prosecution has already been initiated and, therefore, under the circumstances, it can be held only to the extent that the District Sub-Registrar does not have any authority to issue notice for the purpose of cancelling the sale deed, already registered.
With this observation, this application stands disposed of.
(R.R.Prasad, J)
Mukund/-cp.2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Sub-Registrar has authority to issue a notice for cancelling an already registered sale deed.
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of such a notice is maintainable given the lack of such authority.
Smt. Kiran Devi @ Kiran Singh
State of Jharkhand
District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar
R.R. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
