Jharkhand High Court
Puja Shanker vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 December, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5290 of 2018
Puja Shanker ... ... Petitioner
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, Mohanpur, Deoghar
7. The In-charge Officer, District Legal Cell, Deoghar
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, AC to GP-VI
-----
Order No. 06 Dated: 15.12.2018 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-5 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in minutes of District Level Committee, wherby the application of the petitioner for grant of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) has been rejected.
2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner vide Sale Deed No. 1755 dated 15.07.2009 has purchased acquired Basauri landed property pertaining to Jamabandi No. 15/3435, comprised within Town Plan Plot Nos. 1090, 1091 and 1092, Settlement Plot No. 529, admeasuring an area of 7593 sq.ft., situated in Mouza-Tharidulampur, Thana No. 403, Sub-division, Sub-registry & District- Deoghar from her vendors Prem Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Pranav Kumar and Smt. Nishamani. Thereafter, the the petitioner applied for mutation of the said land in her name before the respondent no. 6 - the Circle Officer, Deoghar, Deoghar, who after due enquiry mutated the said land in her name vide Mutation Case No. 665/2009-10 and rent was paid for the year 2009-10. The petitioner intends to sell the said land as she is in urgent 2 need of money and as such, she applied for issuance of LPC before the legal cell of the District Level Committee for the purpose of registration of the said land, which has finally been rejected vide impugned order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 as contained in memo no. 01 dated 15.01.2018.
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 presented by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents have already issued the LPC to one Madhukar Anand for the land situated in the same mouza. Thus, there cannot be any justifiable reason in not issuing LPC to the petitioner for the land in question on the ground that the trial relating to the alleged land scam cases is pending.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the letter as contained in memo no. 371 dated 13.06.2016 has been issued by the respondent no. 3 to implement the direction of the State Government as per the letter no. 195 dated 19.02.2016, keeping in view the prevailing situation in the district of Deoghar to have proper check on fraudulent acts of the local land mafias and to avert any further scam. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not applied for issuance of LPC before the District Level Committee along with necessary documents. Moreover, the revenue records in relation to the concerned land have been seized by the CBI in connection with the investigation of the criminal cases.
35. 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, order of mutation and rent receipt issued with respect of the said land. The petitioner has also brought on record the different orders passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 28 of 1945-46. 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 petitioner has further brought on record the decision of the District Level Committee dated 26.05.2016 in support of her contention that one Madhukar Anand has already been issued LPC for the land pertaining to same mouza.
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.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order/proceeding dated 08.01.2018 as 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 4 favour of the petitioner within fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish