Disposed

Jai Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC16 Jun 2017WPC/3280/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand addressed a writ petition seeking directions for the registration authorities to decide on a complaint regarding a purported unauthorized sale of property. Holding that the authorities must act on representations filed under Section 83 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the Court directed them to dispose of the matter within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Inspector General of Registration and the Deputy Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders in accordance with the law within three months from the receipt o

Jai Prakash Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3280 of 2016

¶2

Jai Prakash Singh,

¶3

S/o Late A.N. Singh, R/o K-1/121 (GF) Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. At Present residing at 207, Phase – I, Jagdeo Place, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum East. …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2. Deputy Commissioner, P.O. & P.S. - Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

¶7

3. Inspector General of Registration, Engineers Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District – Ranchi

¶8

4. District Sub Registrar, Sub Registration Office, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District – Singhbhum East. ….. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, J.C to G.A IV. ---------

¶11

04/Dated: 16th June, 2017

¶12

1. This writ application has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction upon the respondents to take final decision with respect to the complaint filed by the petitioner in the matter of registration of sale deed with respect to the land measuring an area of 2450 sq. ft. (5.61 decimals approximately) along with the house and other structures standing, thereon, over a portion of plot no.803 of khata no.79, situated at mouza Baligama within ward no.10 (MNAC) P.S. M.G.M. within Mango Pargana, Dhalbhum District East Singhbhum, and for neeful action in terms of Section 83 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

¶13

2. Brief facts of the petitioner's case is that he had executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Dhirendra Kumar Singh, authorizing him to sell the aforesaid property, but the holder of power of attorney in collusion and connivance with M/s Techno Culture Building Centre Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, jointly sold the land by executing registered deed of sale dated 20.12.2012.

¶14

In this context it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the registering authorities to verify the power of attorney at the time of registering the sale deed as the said company was not

¶15

- 02 -

¶16

authorized under the said power of attorney. That despite the complaint made on this aspect before the respondent Nos.2 & 3, they have not enquired into the matter, hence, prays that direction be issued upon the respondents to enquire into the matter on the representations, annexed as Annexure – 3 series, of the present writ application.

¶17

3. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned J.C to Government Advocate – IV, appearing on behalf of respondents, submits that evidently it is a civil dispute and the petitioner has also initiated a criminal case against the power of attorney holder and M/s Techno Culture Building Centre Pvt. Ltd. That the registering authorities are not supposed to look into the right of the power of attorney holder or a vendor with respect to the property. That the petitioner has the liberty to take recourse of law by filing appropriate application in the civil court.

¶18

4. Heard. No doubt, the dispute inter se is private and the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the civil court and file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The petitioner has also filed a criminal case. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the concerned authorities, i.e., respondent Nos.2 & 3 have not passed any order with respect to the representation filed by him in terms of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act.

¶19

Since the prayer of the petitioner is limited, the respondent No.3, i.e., the Inspector General of Registration, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, are directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass necessary order in the matter in accordance to the provisions of law.

¶20

5. The petitioner is at liberty to file a representation along with copy of this order before the concerned authority by 01.07.2017 and the concerned authority shall dispose of the same within three months, thereafter.

¶21

With the said direction and observation, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶22

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶23

Chandan/-

Jai Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Singh v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangita Kumari Bhagat and Anr. Vs Shova Devi

Sardar Jaswant Singh Bedi Vs Simranjeet Singh Bedi

Gopal Ram Ganjhu And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited through Its Legal Manager Mr Dipankar Roy Vs Kalawati Devi and Ors.

Anil Bhagat and Ors. Vs Smt Jasoda Devi

Ram Gopal Sharma Vs Trf Ltd. and Ors.