Jharkhand High Court
Manju Shree Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 February, 2018
Equivalent citations: 2018 (3) AJR 399, (2018) 3 JCR 356 (JHA)
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.162 of 2017
With
I.A. No.9671 of 2017
-----
Manju Shree Sinha. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
4. Additional Collector, Deoghar.
5. District Sub Registrar, Deoghar.
6. Circle Officer, Deoghar.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate
For the State : J.C. to G.A.III
-----
12/08.02.2018: The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter contained in Memo No.371 dated 13.06.2016 passed by the respondent no.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar) whereby and whereunder a committee has been constituted for grant of Land Possession Certificate (in short LPC) for registration of land; and for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue LPC to the petitioner immediately and forthwith as required for registration of land. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the part of the order dated 16.12.2016 issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar whereby the petitioner has been denied the issuance of LPC in his favour.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner purchased Basauri land, pertaining to Jamabandi No.3432F, present Jamabandi No.1 (new), comprised within the part of Settlement Plot No.956, Sub Plot No. 1, admeasuring an area of 1500 sq. ft. under Jasidih Notified Area Committee, situated in Mouza Chandpur, Ward No.3, Thana No.261, P.S Jasidih, District Deoghar (hereinafter to be referred as "the said land") from Sri Pyare Lal Singh and Ashok Kumar Mishra vide sale deed dated 16.09.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner came in physical possession of the said land and got her name mutated in the revenue record of the Government vide Mutation Case No.972/2004-05 dated 04.01.2005 and paid rent up to 2010-11. The petitioner, however, intends to sell the said land, -2- as she is in urgent need of money and, accordingly, she applied for issuance of LPC on 05.05.2016 before the respondent no.6 (Circle Officer, Deoghar) as per the direction contained in Letter No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 issued by the Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reform, Government of Jharkhand. However, the respondent no.6 did not pass any order on the said application within the prescribed period of fifteen days. Thereafter, the petitioner again made an application through speed post to the respondent no. 6 along with a copy of the sale deed and mutation order and requested him to issue LPC but he did not pass any order, rather suggested the petitioner to move before the Committee, constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter no. 371 dated 13.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Committee but till date the Committee did not issue the LPC in favour of the petitioner which gives rise to the filing of present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.C No.6184 of 2014 by this Court, the Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, 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 respondent no.6 did not issue the LPC within the prescribed period of fifteen days and as such he has violated the direction issued vide letter no.195 dated 19.02.2016 and the registering authority is duty bound to register the sale deed of the petitioner. The land of the petitioner was initially acquired vide L.A case No.4/1947-48 and is a transferable land which will be apparent from the information provided to her under Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter no.1845 dated 11.12.2012. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has constituted a committee, surpassing the direction contained in letter dated 19.2.2016 issued by the Revenue, Registration and Land Reform Department, Government of Jharkhand. It is also submitted that -3- the petitioner vide application dated 31.03.2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005 made a request to the In-charge of Record Room, Deoghar to provide the records of L.A Case no. 4/1947-48, but the same was not supplied. Earlier also, the respondent no.6 had demanded the record of L.A Case No. 4 of 1947-48 from the in-charge of record room, Deoghar, who vide letter no.51 dated 31.03.2016 informed the Circle Officer Deoghar that the records of L.A Case No. 4 of 1947-48 were sent to the Court of learned Sub-Judge II, Deoghar on 08.06.1987. It is further submitted that the respondents have already issued the LPC to one Usha Singh whose land was also acquired in L.A case No. 4 of 1947-48. Thus, there cannot be any impediment in issuing LPC to the petitioner, as the investigation of land scam cases has been over and trial is continuing, which will be apparent from the order of this Court passed in W.P. (PIL) No.3338 of 2015.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the letter contained in memo no.371 dated 13.06.2016 has been issued to implement the direction of the State Government, contained in 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 further submitted that the application of the petitioner for issuance of LPC was taken up by the District Level Committee on 10.12.2016, however, the petitioner failed to produce the certified copies of the order and award passed in L.A case No. 04 of 1947-48. Since the original record was not available in the District Record Room, the case of the petitioner was not considered due to lack of papers. Accordingly, she was directed to produce the relevant papers and the matter is still pending. It is further submitted that Mouza "Chandpur" is a surveyed Mouza but the petitioner did not take pain to file the copy of Purcha entry and also failed to furnish the sequence of title connecting the recorded tenant to the alleged vendor of the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the district of Deoghar, vast chunk of land have been transferred at the instance of land Mafias by means of forged and fabricated documents. Criminal cases have also been lodged in this -4- regard, which were investigated by the CBI. The records of many mouzas are in the custody of the CBI and thus registration of conveyance deed has been stopped.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said land and now she intends to sell the same. For the said purpose, she sought LPC from the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter no.371 dated 13.06.2016, however, the same has not yet been given to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the certified copy of L.A Case No. 4 of 1947-48 on the basis of which she is claiming her right/title upon the said land. The petitioner has also challenged the constitution of Committee by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide letter no. 371 dated 13.06.2016 and the part of the order dated 16.12.2016, whereby the petitioner has been denied issuance of LPC in her favour. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner filed the application for grant of LPC before the Committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar without objecting its jurisdiction and, thereafter, being aggrieved by non-disposal of her application, she directly approached this Court. On the one hand, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the committed constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and on the other hand she has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents for issuance of LPC in her favour. Under such situation the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the committee constituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for issuance of LPC is left open to be decided in any other appropriate case.
6. So far the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of LPC is concerned, she has brought on record the relevant documents before this Court, such as sale deed, mutation order and rent receipt with respect to the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the record of the Land Acquisition Case No. 4/1947-48 is lying in the Court of Sub-Judge II, Deoghar since 08.06.1987 and the said averment of the petitioner is supported by the letters of the In-charge Officer, Record Room, Deoghar (Annexure -3 series). The respondents -5- have not denied the said statement of the petitioner. Moreover, in the impugned order itself the Committee has observed that as per the letter of In-charge of the Record Room, Deoghar dated 25.06.2011, the record of the L.A Case No.4 of 1947-48 is not available in the Record Room, Deoghar. Thus, the petitioner had the sufficient ground for not producing the certified copy of the L.A Case No.4 of 1947-48 before the Committee. The petitioner has also averred that one Smt. Usha Singh, whose land was also related to the Land Acquisition Case No. 4/47-48, has already been granted LPC by the said Committee.
7. Now, the question is as to whether the respondents are justified in keeping the application of the petitioner pending for want of a document which has no bearing with the registration?
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 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. From the record it transpires that the petitioner's application has been kept pending by the Committee without any fault on the part of the petitioner. No other legal impediment in issuing LPC in favour of the petitioner has been bought on record by the respondent authorities.
9. The Registration Act, 1908 itself is a complete code. All situations have been specifically enumerated in the Act itself under which the District Sub Registrar or the Registrar may refuse to register -6- the sale deed and other documents presented for registration under the Act. 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 the 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 principle of law 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. Thus, in my considered view, the Committee had no authority to keep the application of the petitioner pending for want of certified copy of L.A case No.4 of 1947-48 if otherwise she has presented sufficient documents to establish her claim for registration.
10. Under the aforesaid circumstance the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent no.3) is directed to issue LPC in favour of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
12. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, I.A. No.9671 of 2017 also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/AFR