Dismissed

The State of Jharkhand v. Ramesh Choudhary

Jharkhand HC17 Nov 2022LPA/289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a writ order directing a District Level Committee to issue a Land Possession Certificate to the petitioner. The High Court held an interference is not warranted and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Jharkhand Vs Ramesh Choudhary — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

LPA No. 289 of 2019

¶4

1. 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

...... Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Ramesh Choudhary, s/o late Gendalal Choudhary, resident of Jhousagarhi, near Gaushala, Dumka Road, Deoghar, PO, PS & District Deoghar

¶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 ---------------

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

17^th November 2022

¶19

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

¶20

The order dated 15^th December 2018 by which the writ Court has directed the District Level Committee (in short, Committee) to call for the application filed before the Circle Officer, Mohanpur, District Deoghar for the Land Possession Certificate (in short, LPC) and issue LPC in favour of the writ petitioner within 15 days has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶21

In the aforesaid order dated 15^th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 4554 of 2018, the writ Court has held as under:

¶22

“5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner claims to have acquired the landed property in question through registered sale deed and intends to sell the same. The petitioner has brought on record the copies of the relevant documents pertaining to the land in question such as sale deed and different orders passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 41 of 1966-67 and R. Misc. Case No. 139 of 1968-69. It has also been stated in the writ petition that the vendors had acquired the said land through the aforesaid cases and had got their names mutated vide Mutation Case No. 50/1972-73. The respondents have not raised any question regarding the authenticity

¶23

2 LPA No. 289 of 2019

¶24

of the orders passed in the aforesaid land acquisition cases in their counter affidavit. The petitioner has further brought on record the decision of the District Level Committee dated 26.05.2016 in support of his contention that two persons namely, Sudarshan Rajeev Ranjan Jha and Amar Nath Shringari have already been issued LPC for the land pertaining to same mouza.

¶25

6. 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 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.

¶26

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the District Level Committee headed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar is directed to call for the application(s) of the petitioner filed before the respondent no. 6 and to issue LPC for the land in question in favour of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

¶27

Before proceeding further to examine the rival contentions, it is indicated that the application for LPC was made to the appellant no. 6 – Circle Officer, Mohanpur Deoghar but no LPC was issued.

¶28

Before the writ Court, the respondent produced copies of orders passed in LA Case No. 41 of 1966-67 and R. Misc. Case No. 139 of 1968-69 which indicate that lands were acquired in favour of Kartik Narain Narone and others 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.

¶29

The respondent has pleaded that by virtue of registered sale deed no. 4334 dated 16^th December 2003 executed by Kartik Narain Narone and Smriti Rekha Narone, who were the raiyats in whose favour lands were acquired under section 53 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, he acquired 19046 sq. feet of lands which he intended to sell by obtaining LPC.

¶30

The first objection taken by the State of Jharkhand to the direction issued by the writ Court is that a writ petition 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

¶31

3 LPA No. 289 of 2019

¶32

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 ). 7. 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:

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

4 LPA No. 289 of 2019

¶46

would certainly refuse to 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.”

¶47

This order has been referred by the learned GA-II to submit that LPC cannot be issued without verifying certain factual aspects.

¶48

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.

¶49