Jharkhand High Court
Kusumlata Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2285 of 2018
1. Kusumlata Devi
2. Chandra Bhan Singh
3. Indra Bhan Singh
4. Geeta Devi
5. Abhishek Kumar Singh (Minor)
6. Abhinash Kumar Singh (Minor) ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
4. The Additional Collector, Deoghar
5. The District Sub-Registrar, Deoghar
6. The Circle Officer, Deoghar
7. The In-charge Officer, District Vidhi Shakha, Deoghar
..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vineet Prakash
For the State: Ms. Aanya, A.C to G.A-III
-----
07/28.08.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
08.01.2018 passed by the District Level Committee, Deoghar whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) for registration of the land has been rejected.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, I.A. No. 7327 of 2018 was filed seeking quashing of memo No. 1 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-1 to the said interlocutory application) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby the petitioners were intimated that their application for grant of LPC has been rejected. The said interlocutory application was allowed and the petitioners were directed to incorporate the amendment in the writ petition.
3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land under Jamabandi No. 5/3432F, being part of Settlement Plot No. 14/87, Sub Plot Nos. 5 and 8, admeasuring an area of 2334 sq. ft. under Ward No. 3(old) of Jasidih Notified Area Committee, New Ward No. 8 of Deoghar Nagar Nigam, situated at Mouza-Dhwouni, Thana No. 201, P.S- Jasidih, District-Deoghar (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') was purchased by one Lalan Prasad Singh by a registered sale deed executed by 2 the vendors i.e. Tejnarayan Dubey, Harikesh Dubey, Ganesh Dubey and Fanendra Nath Dubey on 19.05.1984. Thereafter, he came in possession of the said land and got his name mutated in the revenue records of the government and started paying rent. After the death of Lalan Prasad Singh, the petitioners came in possession of the said land being the legal heirs and successors and also paid the rent to the government till 2014-15. Subsequently, the petitioners intended to sell the part of the said land and as such they applied for issuance of the LPC before the District Level Committee. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 08.01.2018 on the ground that the said land is recorded as 'Parti Kadim' in the survey khatiyan and the petitioners have not submitted any document to show that the said land has been converted from 'Parti Kadim' to 'Basauri'.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, has issued a letter bearing No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 whereby the Circle Officers have been directed to issue the LPC within a period of fifteen days from the date of the application for the purpose of registration of the land, failing which the registering authority has to register the sale deed presented for registration. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter No. 371 dated 13.06.2016, has arbitrarily constituted a committee comprising of himself, Additional Collector, Government Pleader and the Circle Officer for issuance of the LPC for registration of the land and to deal with revenue matters. The petitioners are in possession of the said land since long without any hindrance/obstruction whatsoever from any corner and even by the respondent authorities which would be evident from the rent receipts granted by the respondent authorities themselves. The order of rejection passed by the committee was never communicated to the petitioners, rather the same was published in the daily newspaper which reflects the arbitrariness of the respondents. A copy of memo no. 1 dated 15.01.2018 3 was however brought on record by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. 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 of the part of the said land 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.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners themselves failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate that 'Parti Kadim' land was converted into 'Basauri' land and thus they cannot be given any benefit of their 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 equality.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the registered owner of the said land and now they intend to sell the same. For the said purpose, they sought the LPC through their constituted power of attorney from the committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter No. 371 dated 13.06.2016. However, the same was rejected on the ground that they did not produce any document to show that the said land has been converted from 'Parti Kadim' to 'Basauri'.
7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioners filed the application for grant of the LPC before the committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar without objecting its jurisdiction and thereafter being aggrieved by non-disposal of their application, approached this Court. On the one hand, the petitioners have raised question regarding jurisdiction of the committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and on the other hand, they have prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents for issuance of the LPC in their favour. Under such situation, the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the committee constituted by 4 the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for issuance of the LPC is left open to be decided in any other appropriate case.
8. So far as the prayer of the petitioners for issuance of the LPC is concerned, they have brought on record the relevant documents such as sale deed, mutation order and rent receipts with respect to the said land. In the sale deed dated 19.05.1984 executed in favour of Lalan Prasad Singh, the nature of the said land has been shown as 'Basauri'. It also appears that some portion of the said land was also sold by virtue of a registered document on 31.07.2015 and in that sale deed also the nature of the said land has been shown as 'Basauri'. The petitioners have also brought on record Basauri Amalnama Patta executed in favour of one Jageshwar Dubey and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar in Settlement Case No. 24 of 1944-45 whereby the said Basauri Amalnama Patta was confirmed. The possession of the petitioners over the said land has not been disputed by the respondent authorities. The respondents have also not contended before this Court that any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners by any appropriate authority questioning their right, title and interest over the said land. The position here is that on the one hand, the respondent authorities have permitted the petitioners to continue with the possession of the said land and on the other hand, they are being denied to transfer the same questioning their title over the said land.
9. This Court in catena of judgments has held that under the Registration Act, 1908 there are only three basic requirements for registration of a document 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 of transfer of only what is possessed by the vendor and nothing more than that. The title is 5 not created only by execution of a sale deed, rather the right of the vendor over the property gets transferred from the seller to the purchaser, subject to the foundational fact that the seller should be the owner and should have the 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.
10. The Registration Act, 1908 is a complete code in itself. All eventualities have been specifically enumerated in the Act itself under which the District Sub-Registrar or the Registrar may refuse to register the sale deed or other documents presented for registration under the Act. However, the Act nowhere provides that the Registrar/Sub- Registrar can refuse to register the lease/sale deed pertaining to a property, the ownership of which is doubted. It does not fall within the domain of the Registrar or Sub-Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the deed of conveyance. So far as the competence of the executant to transfer a property is concerned, the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are almost silent for obvious reason that registration of a document by itself does not improve the nature or extent of the title that is vested with the transferor of the property. The effect of registering a document is only that whatever title the transferor possesses, is conveyed to the transferee. In view of the age-old legal principle that nobody can convey a better title than what he possesses, the registering authorities are assigned with no role whatsoever as to the ascertainment of title with the transferor. The registration of a document would merely put the transferee in the place of the transferor vis-a-vis the subject-matter of the document.
11. Thus, in my considered view, the committee had no authority to reject the application for issuance of the LPC to the petitioners merely for the reason that they did not submit the document in proof of change of the said land from 'Parti Kadim' to 'Basauri'. The documents which have been brought 6 on record by the petitioners suggest that the said land is 'Basauri' land. Moreover, the committee constituted for issuance of the LPC to any intending seller is purely an administrative body formed only to summarily decide the application for grant of permission for registration of any sale and thus it would not be allowed to deal with any intricate question of title which is within the domain of the Civil Court in an appropriate proceeding. Even if the constitution of the committee is treated as valid, then also, before granting the LPC to any intending seller, the committee was required to prima facie inquire into the entitlement of the seller, as for the aforesaid reason, the registration of the sale deed does not confer better title to the purchaser.
12. In view of the discussions made herein above, the impugned order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the District Level Committee, Deoghar as well as the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1 dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-1 to I.A. No. 7327 of 2018) to the extent of rejecting the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside. The District Level Committee, Deoghar is directed to issue the LPC in favour of the petitioners for the purpose of sale of the part of the said land, as was applied on behalf of the petitioners. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid observations are confined to the extent of grant of LPC for registration of the said land and the same shall not in any way affect the right, title and interest of the parties over the said land.
13. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 28.08.2018 Satish/A.F.R