Allowed

Champa Devi v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Dec 2018WPC/5643/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash rejection of Land Possession Certificate application. Single Judge quashed the impugned order and directed the District Level Committee to issue the certificate within fifteen days, noting the petitioner's registered ownership and possession.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.01.2018 quashed; Directive to Deputy Commissioner to issue LPC within fifteen days.

Champa Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5643 of 2017

¶3

Champa Devi ... … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar

¶6

The Additional Collector, Deoghar

¶7

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar

¶8

The Circle Officer, Deoghar … … Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶10

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, GA -----

¶11

Order No. 05 Dated: 07.12.2018

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 as contained in memo no. 01 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-1 to the I.A. No. 10368 of 2018) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in the minutes of the District Level Committee, whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) has been rejected.

¶13

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner acquired transferable Basauri landed property pertaining to Jamabandi Nos. 30/3493(D), and 31/3493(Bh), comprised within part of Town Plan Plot Nos. 1280 and 1281, Settlement Plot No. 95, admeasuring an area of 13591 sq. ft., under Ward No. 17, New Ward No. 16 of Deoghar Municipality, situated in Mouza-Khoradah, Mohalla-Bompass Town, Thana No. 402, Sub Division, Sub-registry, P.S. and District-Deoghar (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) by a registered family partition deed no. 2489 dated 22.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner came in possession of the said land and got her name mutated in the revenue records of the government vide Mutation Case No. 972/2010-11. Subsequently, the petitioner intended to sell the said land and as such, she applied for issuance of LPC before the District Level Committee. However, the same was rejected vide order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 on the ground that the same is recorded as Parti Kadim in the survey khatiyan

¶14

¶15

and the petitioner has not submitted any document to show that the said land has been converted from Parti Kadim to Basauri.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 19.05.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014 by this Court, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, has issued a letter bearing no. 195 dated 19.02.2016 whereby the Circle Officers have been directed to issue LPC within a period of fifteen days from the date of the application for the purpose of registration of land, failing which the registering authority has to register the sale deed presented for registration. It is further submitted that the District Level Committee in not issuing the LPC within the prescribed period of fifteen days has violated the direction issued vide letter no. 195 dated 19.02.2016 by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand. Under the said circumstance, the registering authority is bound to register the sale deed of the petitioner. The said land was earlier sold several times which was never objected. However, on this occasion, a new objection has been raised for registration of the document of sale which is not permissible particularly in view of the fact that the registration of the document of sale of the land can never be denied on an extraneous ground.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner herself failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate that Parti Kadim land was converted into Basauri land and thus, she cannot take benefit of her own laches and inaction. If any mistake had been committed earlier, the same cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Moreover, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not provide negative equity.

¶18

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said land and now she intends to sell the same. For the said purpose, she sought LPC from the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter no. 371 dated 13.06.2016. However, the same has been refused vide impugned order/proceeding

¶19

¶20

dated 08.01.2018 contained in memo no. 01 dated 15.01.2018 on the ground that she did not produce any document to show that the said land has been converted from Parti Kadim to Basauri.

¶21

6. The petitioner has brought on record the copies of the relevant documents pertaining to the land in question such as registered sale deed, registered partition deed, mutation order and rent receipts issued with respect to the said land. In the sale deed no. 2484 dated 21.10.2009 executed in favour of the petitioner and her husband Bhim Ram, the nature of the said land has been shown as Basauri. Thereafter, the said property was partitioned between the petitioner and her husband vide registered Partition Deed No. 2489 dated 22.10.2009. It also appears that some portion of the said land was also sold by virtue of registered sale deed no. 3047 of 1965. The petitioner has also brought on record Basauri Patta dated 23.05.1915 and different orders passed in Rev. Misc. Case Nos. 2196/1913-14, 2197/1913-14, 2198/1913-14 and 2199/1913-14. The respondents have not raised any question regarding the authenticity of the orders passed in the aforesaid land revenue miscellaneous cases in their counter affidavit. The petitioner has also contended that the respondents had already issued LPC earlier to the vendor of the petitioner Smt. Padma Mukherjee for the same land, vide memo no. 1250 dated 06.10.2009. The possession of the petitioner over the said land has not been disputed by the respondent authorities. The respondents have also not asserted before this Court that any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by any appropriate authority questioning her right, title and interest over the said land. The position here is that on the one hand, the respondent authorities have permitted the petitioner to continue with the possession of the said land and on the other hand, she is being denied to transfer the same questioning her title over the said land.

¶22

7. This court in catena of judgments has held that under the Registration Act, 1908 there are only three basic requirements i.e., (a) there must be valid presentation; (b) valid execution; and (c) adequate stamp duty and if all the said three conditions are complied with, there is no option with the registering authority but to

¶23

¶24

register the document. A Division Bench of this court in L.P.A No. 321 of 2012 (State of Jharkhand Vs. Pritindra Narayan Roy & Ors.) has held that one cannot get title merely by registered sale deed and it is an instrument only of transfer of what is possessed by the vendor and nothing more than that. The title is not created only by sale deed but it is created in favour of the person from whom he purchased the property subject to foundational fact that the seller should be the owner and should have saleable right. It is also a well-known principle “buyers beware” which also indicates that if a buyer purchases any property without enquiring about the title of the property, he/she does so at his/her own risk.

¶25

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 contained in memo no. 01 dated 15.01.2018 cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set-aside. The District Level Committee headed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is directed to issue LPC in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶26

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶28

Manish

Champa Devi v. State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champa Devi v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashida Khatoon Vs Welfare

Bokaro Chemical Industries through One of Its Partner Moti Lal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bokaro Chemical Industries through One of Its Partner Moti Lal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ravindra Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand