Dismissed

The State of Jharkhand v. Bishnu Kumar Bagaria

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2022LPA/288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a writ order directing issuance of a Land Possession Certificate to an intending buyer, the High Court of Jharkhand held that the registering authority need not examine detailed title requirements at the LPC stage and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

None. The appeal was dismissed and the stay application disposed of without being granted.

The State of Jharkhand Vs Bishnu Kumar Bagaria — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

LPA No. 288 of 2019

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, PO, PS Dhurwa and District Ranchi

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, PO, PS and District Deoghar

¶7

The Additional Collector, Deoghar, PO, PS and District Deoghar

¶8

The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar, PO, PS and District Deoghar

¶9

The Circle Officer, Mohanpur, PO &PS Mohanpur, District Deoghar

¶10

The In-charge Officer, District Vidhi Shakha, Deoghar, PO, PS& District Deoghar ...... Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Bishnu Kumar Bagaria, son of Late Radhe Mohan Bagaria, resident of Station Road, Deoghar, PO, PS and District Deoghar presently residing at Space Town, Housing Complex, VIP Road, Block No. 10, Flat No. 5-I, PO Airport, PSBaguihati & District Kolkata-700052 (West Bengal)

¶13

..... Respondent

¶14

---------------

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶16

For the Appellant-State : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, GA-II For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate

---------------

O R D E R

17^th November 2022

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶21

Against the order dated 31^st October 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2767 of 2018, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal, taking objection to the writ Court's direction that the District Level Committee (in short, Committee) shall issue the Land Possession Certificate (in short, LPC) to the applicant within 15 days.

¶22

The writ Court in the order dated 31^st October 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 2767 of 2018 has held as under:

¶23

“6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is the registered owner of the land who intends to sale the same. For the said purpose, he 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 dated 08.01.2018 contained in memo no. 01 dated 15.01.2018 on the ground that the relevant revenue records

¶24

2 LPA No. 288 of 2019

¶25

have been seized by the CBI in connection with the investigation of criminal cases relating to the alleged land scam.

¶26

7. The petitioner has brought on record copies of the relevant documents such as, the sale deeds, orders of mutation and rent receipts issued with respect to the land in question. The petitioner has also brought on record the different orders passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 14/1964-65 and 40/1964-65. The respondents have not raised any question regarding the authenticity of the orders passed in the aforesaid land acquisition cases in their counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Rajeev Ranjan and Dukhni Devi have already been issued LPC for the land pertaining to the same mouza.

¶27

8. 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 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 the 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 does so at his/her own risk.

¶28

9. 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. 3 – 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.”

¶29

The writ Court having taken note of the documents produced by the writ petitioner who is the respondent before us observed that a registered sale deed does not confer a better title to the vendee than what the vendor does not possess; and, the plea that the land records are in custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) in the circumstances of the case is not a valid ground and, therefore, proceeded to issue the aforesaid direction to the Committee.

¶30

Before proceeding further to examine the rival contentions, it is indicated that the application for LPC was made by the intending purchaser which has been rejected by an order dated 08^th January 2018 contained in Memo No. 1 dated 15^th January 2018.

¶31

Before the writ Court, the respondent produced copies of orders passed in LA Case No. 14 of 1964-65 and LA Case No. 40 of 1964-65 which indicate that lands were acquired in favour of Kapil Deo Singh, Smt. Deorani

¶32

3 LPA No. 288 of 2019

¶33

Devi and Smt. Sumitra Devi under section 53 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 which is in pari materia to section 25-A of the Santhal Pargana Rent Regulation, 1886.

¶34

The respondent has pleaded that by virtue of registered sale deed no. 172 dated 19^th January 1989 executed by Smt. Deorani Devi; registered sale deed no. 1550 dated 25^th May 1999 executed by Shankar Prasad Sah and Smt. Shobha Devi and; registered sale deed No. 1569 dated 26^th May 1999 executed by Shankar Prasad Sah and Smt. Shobha Devi – who were the legal heirs and successors of the raiyats in whose favour lands were acquired under section 53 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949; he acquired 7881 sq. feet of lands which he intended to sell by obtaining LPC.

¶35

The first objection taken by the State of Jharkhand to the direction issued by the writ Court is that the writ proceeding involving questions of title in land is not maintainable. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned GA-II would submit that a question of right, title and interest in the land shall require evidence oral as well as documentary which can be appropriately taken in a Court of civil jurisdiction and not in a writ proceeding. On this issue, we would only indicate that in every case a dispute on facts raised by the respondent may not be a ground for the writ Court not to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (refer: “ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd” (2004) 3 SCC 553 ).

¶36

Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned GA-II has drawn our attention to the order dated 19^th May 2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6184 of 2014 and analogous cases in which the writ Court has held as under:

¶37

“12. In view of the discussions hereinabove, to summarise, the registering authority is authorised to make enquiries;

¶38

(i) for identification of the person/persons presenting the document for registration,

¶39

(ii) for identification of the property which is the subject-matter of registration,

¶40

(iii) for ascertaining whether the person executing the document has executed the same voluntarily,

¶41

(iv) for ascertaining the authority of the representative, assign etc. who has presented the document for registration,

¶42

(v) if the person who has executed the document is dead and his/her representative/assign denies the execution,

¶43

(vi) for ascertaining whether the person executing the document is a minor or lunatic or idiot,

¶44

(vii) for ascertaining whether the document presented for registration has been presented within the time prescribed,

¶45

(viii) whether the property which is the subject-matter for registration is situated within the local limits of the registering

¶46

4 LPA No. 288 of 2019

¶47

authority,

¶48

(ix) whether the document presented for registration is accompanied with recent government survey/map and

¶49

(x) whether the document is properly stamped and complete in all respects or not.

¶50

13. The registering authority can refuse registration, if he is satisfied that requirements under the Registration Act are not satisfied. The registering officer can also refuse registration if the document presented for registration is not accompanied with “khata pustika” as provided under Section 23 of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. In certain cases registering officer can make appropriate endorsement on the document, if the registering officer has refused to register a document. In cases where it has been specifically brought to the notice of the registering officer that the land which is comprised in the document presented for registration is government land, forest land, Gair Mazurwa land etc., registering officer can refuse registration of such document of transfer. However, a blanket order/direction containing no specific description of the property, would not be a ground for not registering the document presented for registration. Further, when it has been brought to the notice of the registering officer that litigation with the State or its instrumentality with respect to title of the vendor is pending, a communication shall be made by the registering office to the State/its instrumentality in this regard however, registration of a document cannot be refused on the ground of pending litigation. Besides the above, if it appears to the registering authority that registration of a document would be against public policy, he would certainly refuseto register the same. In all cases where the registering officer refuses to register a document, appropriate endorsement would be made on the sale-deed and it would be open to the aggrieved person to file appeal under section 72 of the Act.”

¶51

We are of the opinion that the aforesaid observation by the writ Court may be taken note of by the registering authority and at this stage when the respondent has made an application for LPC the aforesaid requirements as indicated in the order dated 19^th May 2015 passed in WP(C) No. 6184 of 2014 and analogous cases cannot be looked into by the Committee.

¶52