Jharkhand High Court
Narendra Butala vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 15 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: AIR2005JHAR99, [2005(2)JCR557(JHR)], AIR 2005 JHARKHAND 99, 2005 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1643, 2005 A I H C 3816, (2005) 32 ALLINDCAS 494 (JHA), (2005) 2 JCR 557 (JHA), (2006) 1 LANDLR 585, (2005) 4 JLJR 512
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents particularly respondent No. 3, the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi to register the sale-deed presented by the petitioner with respect to the land measuring eight kothas, comprised within Municipal Survey Plot No. 1359, Holding No. 35, situated at Lalpur, Ranchi.
3. Petitioner's case is that the land originally belongs to Smt. Jasoda Sundari Roy. The said Jasoda Sundari Roy transferred the said land to Smt. Uma Shashi Dasee w/o Jatindra Mohan Chandra by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 20.6.1938. After the death of Uma Shashi Dasee and Jatindra Mohan chandra, their sons inherited the said property and consequently they got their name mutated in the revenue records vide Mutation Case No. 1134 R 27/78-79. Petitioner as an Attorney of the heirs of recorded tenant presented the sale-deed for registration in favour of the vendees. Sub-registrar instead of registering the documents of sale, the same was sent to the Circle Officer for verification. The circle Officer said to have reported that the land in question is not a lease property. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the said report Sub-Registrar has not registered the document.
4. Respondents filed their counter-affidavit and have no disputed the fact that after the death of Uma Shashi Dasee mutation of the land was done in favour of the heirs. It is stated that Circle Officer took opinion of the Government Pleader vide latter No. 276, dated 30.12.2003. The Government Pleader has opined that the disputed plot does not seem to be lease hold property of Khas Mahal.
5. It is rather surprising that in spite of catena of decisions passed by the Patna High Court and also by this Court clarifying the power of the registering authority wherein it has been consistently held that where there is valid execution, valid presentation and payment of adequate stamp duty, the registering authority has no option but to register the document.
6. In the light of the settled principles of law, I am of the opinion that the Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to register the document.
7. For the aforesaid reason, this writ petition is allowed and the Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner.