Jharkhand High Court
Dhiraj Kumar Sah vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary on 3 November, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:33096
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 75 of 2025
Dhiraj Kumar Sah, Son of Shri Mahesh Sah, aged about 36 years, Resident of
Karahaniband, P.O. & P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar through his Power of Attorney
Holder Ravi Kumar, Son of Jai Krishna Parihast, aged about 36 years, Resident of
Sakin Hari Kishun Shah Lane, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.
...Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration
and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, officiating from his office at
Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy
Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.
3. In-Charge Officer, Deoghar, District Legal Cell, officiating from his office at
P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar.
4. Circle Officer, Deoghar, officiating from his office at O/o Circle Officer,
Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar. ...Respondents
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Miss Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
Mrs. Smita Sinha
For the Respondents : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
A.C. to A.G.
CAV on: 13.10.2025 Pronounced on: 03/11/2025
JUDGMENT
1. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has assailed the order contained in Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016; wherein a direction has been issued that action relating to revenue, registration, mutation and issuance of rent receipt of Basaudi / Kamat / Bakast Malik / Mokirir Basaudi / Lakhraj / Jamindari Basaudi Amalnama / Leasehold Land shall be taken after the decision taken by the District Level Committee that has been constituted and the Notification No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1 wherein it has been directed that submission of certain documents including Land Possession Certificate shall be necessary for registration of any document by the Registrar.
2. Briefly stated, the land situated at Mouza Karahaniband, Thana No. 584, District Deoghar, Jamabandi No. 36 was owned and possessed by Devendra Nath Chatopadhyay (Chatterjee) who died in the year 1941 leaving behind his sons namely Bhola Nath Chatterjee, Satya Kinkar Chatterjee, 2025:JHHC:33096 Vijay Pad Chatterjee, Abhay Pad Chatterjee and Hari Sadhan Chatterjee. The legal heirs of Devendra Nath Chatopadhyay entered into a family partition and executed a Deed of Partition bearing 237 dated 17.01.1969. As per the partition, the property situated at Mouza Karahaniband, Thana No. 584, District Deoghar, Jamabandi No. 36 admeasuring an area of 3.44 Acres came in the share of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee. Thereafter, mutation of said land was carried out in the name of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee and his name was also entered in the Register II.
3. The said Hari Sadhan Chatterjee died leaving behind his wife Laxmi Rani Chatterjee and 4 (four) sons namely Biswa Nath Chatterjee, Gora Chand Chatterjee, Shekhar Chatterjee and Somnath Chatterjee and the said Somnath Chatterjee died leaving behind his wife Papia Chatterjee and 2 (two) sons Abhijeet Chetterjee and Shubham Chatterjee. The genealogy table of Devendra Nath Chatterjee is reproduced as under:-
4. The legal heirs of Hari Sadan Chatterjee partitioned the property among themselves and Laxmi Rani Chatterjee, Bishwanath Chatterjee, Gora Chand Chatterjee Papia Chatterjee, Abhijeet Chatterjee and Shubham Chatterjee were allotted 4/5th share which came to 1,19,712 Sq. Ft. Thereafter, Laxmi Rani Chatterjee, Bishwanath Chatterjee, Gora Chand Chatterjee Papia Chatterjee, Abhijeet Chatterjee and Shubham Chatterjee sold the property situated at Mouza Karahaniband, Thana No. 584, District Deoghar, Jamabandi No. 36 admeasuring an area 19,952 Sq. Ft. to the Petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.2003. The Petitioner executed a Registered Power of Attorney being 207 dated 12.05.2010 in favour of one Ravi Kumar conferring him the right to manage the property and further take steps for the sale of the property.
22025:JHHC:33096
5. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No. 1 issued Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 wherein certain restrictions were levied for registration of any document. As per the said Notification, any document presented for registration should be accompanied with Khatiyan, or Copy of Register II, or Land Possession Certificate or Correction Slip. Further, by Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 2, a District Level Committee has been constituted which shall take decision relating to revenue, registration, mutation and issuance of rent receipt of Basaudi / Kamat / Bakast Malik / Mokirir Basaudi / Lakhraj / Jamindari Basaudi Amalnama / Leasehold Land.
6. The Power of Attorney Holder of the Petitioner had made an Application on 23.10.2018 to the District Level Committee for grant of Land Possession Certificate. However, no action was taken by the Respondents and therefore the Power of Attorney Holder of the Petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4216 of 2019 for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 and directing the Respondent to issue Land Possession Certificate. During the pendency of the writ petition, the District Level Committee, Deoghar rejected the Application for grant of Land Possession Certificate on the ground that revenue records do not reflect the name of Power of Attorney Holder of the Petitioner. Thus, W.P.(C) No. 4216 of 2019 was disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to prefer fresh application in his own name or through his Power of Attorney Holder.
7. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 which has been issued in consequence of Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016. The Petitioner though has not specifically challenged the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016; however, during the course of argument has assailed the said Notification being wholly without jurisdiction and in violation to Registration Act 1908 and also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77.
8. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 on 12.06.2025; however, this Court in its order dated 07.08.2025 has recorded that the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents is not up to mark and directed the Respondents to file fresh counter affidavit. Pursuant thereto, the Respondents filed supplementary counter affidavit on 07.10.2025. The 3 2025:JHHC:33096 stand taken by the Respondents is that the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 has been issued to comply the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014 (Raj Rajeshwar Singh Chandel v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). Further, the name of the Petitioner is not figuring in the Register-II of Mouza Kanibad No. 584 and name of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee is recorded in the Register II. The further case of the Respondents is that there is no legal relation of Dhiraj Kumar Sah or Ravi Kumar with the Raiyat.
9. Miss Shivani Jaluka, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the contention of the Respondent-State that the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 has been issued in compliance of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, is misplaced. She further placed reliance on Para 12 of the judgment passed in Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, wherein certain directions were laid down relating to enquiries to be made by the Registering Authority.
It has been submitted that the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, has been watered down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar & Ors. 2025 SCC Online SC 740, wherein it has been held that the Registrar, when presented with a document for registration, does not have any adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title, and the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges are paid.
10. It has been further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment in Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, has been passed taking into account Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 which was inserted by the State Government to prevent registration of any document or class of document which would be against public policy; however, Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 has been declared ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2025 SCC Online Jhar 2209.
11. Per Contra, Mr. Mohan Dubey (AC to AG) had submitted that the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 has been 4 2025:JHHC:33096 issued to comply the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014 (Raj Rajeshwar Singh Chandel v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). It has been further submitted that the name of the Petitioner is not figuring in the Register-II of Mouza Kanibad No. 584 and name of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee is recorded in the Register II. He had emphatically submitted that there is no legal relation of Dhiraj Kumar Sah or Ravi Kumar with the Raiyat.
12. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent State has also submitted that the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 to safeguard public interest and to comply with the directions passed by this Court in the case of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014.
13. In rebuttal, the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77, wherein at Para 61 it has been observed that it is not possible to define 'public policy' and the executive cannot fill the grey areas; as such, power rests with the Judiciary.
14. Having gone through the records of the case and hearing the rival parties, it is crystal clear that the land situated at Mouza Karahaniband, Thana No. 584, District Deoghar, Jamabandi No. 36 is recorded in the name of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee in the Register-II. On perusal of Annexure 3 of the writ petition which is the 'Sale Deed dated 31.05.2003', it is evident that the legal heirs of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee sold the land situated at Mouza Karahaniband, Thana No. 584, District Deoghar, Jamabandi No. 36 admeasuring an area of 19,952 Sq. Ft. to the Petitioner.
15. The Respondent State in Para 8 of the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 07.10.2025 has admitted that Annexure-3 of the Writ Petition shows the Petitioner to be the real purchaser of the land in question. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Petitioner has purchased the property in question from the legal heirs of Hari Sadhan Chatterjee, whose name appears in the Register II and the Petitioner has acquired right, title and interest in the property in question by virtue of Sale Deed dated 31.05.2003.
16. The Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 has been issued by the Respondent No. 1 as per which a District Level Committee has been constituted to take decisions relating to revenue, registration, mutation, issuance of land possession certificate. Further, as per Clause (1) of the said Notification, the person presenting the document for 5 2025:JHHC:33096 registration has to provide copy of Khatiyan or copy of register II or Land Possession Certificate.
17. As per the Ld. Counsel for the State, the Notification No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 was issued to safeguard public interest and in compliance of the directions given by this Court in the case of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014. As a matter of fact, this Court in the case of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Chandel vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014, at Para 11, took into consideration Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 which was inserted vide Section 2 of the Bihar Act 6 of 1991 and at Para 12 laid down directions to be looked into by the Registering Authority. Para 11 and 12 of the Judgment reads as under:-
"11. Section 22A has been inserted by the State Government for preventing registration of any document or class of documents which would be against public policy. The said provision empowers the registering officer to refuse to register any document to which the notification issued under sub- section (1) to Section 22A is applicable. The expression "public policy" or "opposed to public policy" finds reference in various enactments including Section 23 of the Contract Act. Though, the expression "public policy" is not capable of being given a precise definition and it would depend upon the nature of the transaction, there is unanimity of judicial opinion that anything injurious or harmful to the public good or to the public interest would be opposed to public policy. Though, the State Government has not framed Rules for the purpose of Section 22A, the legislative intent must serve a guide to the registering officer.
12. In view of the discussions hereinabove, to summarise, the registering authority is authorised to make enquiries;
(i) for identification of the person/persons presenting the document for registration,
(ii) for identification of the property which is the subject matter of registration,
(iii) for ascertaining whether the person executing the document has executed the same voluntarily,
(iv) for ascertaining the authority of the representative, assign etc. who has presented the document for registration,
(v) if the person who has executed the document is dead and his/her representative/assign denies the execution,
(vi) for ascertaining whether the person executing the document is a minor or lunatic or idiot,
(vii) for ascertaining whether the document presented for registration has been presented within the time prescribed,
(viii) whether the property which is the subject matter for registration is situated within the local limits of the registering authority,
(ix) whether the document presented for registration is accompanied with recent government survey/map and
(x) whether the document is properly stamped and complete in all respects or not."
18. The constitutional validity of Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 came up before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2025 SCC Online Jhar 2209. Relying on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC 77, this Court held Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 as ultra vires and struck down the same. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"5. Having regard to the said decision of the Supreme Court, which is binding on this Court, and since the provision considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment is identical to the provision framed by the Bihar State, which is adopted by the State of Jharkhand, Section 22-A of the 6 2025:JHHC:33096 Registration Act 1908 as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, as well as the consequential Notification issued under the said provision on 26.08.2015 are struck down and all order passed by the Sub-Registrars or the officials of the Registration Department pursuant to the notification 26.08.2015 shall stand set aside."
19. It is a settled principle of law that any executive order based on statutory provision becomes invalid if the said statutory provision has been declared ultra vires. The same is based on the Latin maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" which means that if the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
20. Further, as per the Registration Act 1908, the Registering Authority does not have the power to look into the title or possession of the person who has presented the document for registration. Any rule or executive order which is passed in contradiction to the statute is without jurisdiction. The Registering Authority, as per the provisions of Registration Act 1908 cannot look into the title of the Executant and the same can be looked into only by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
21. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi vs. Sub-Registrar & Ors. 2025 SCC Online SC 740. In the said Judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court considered the validity of Rule 55A(i) of the Registration Rules as framed by the State of Tamil Nadu. Rule 55A gave power to the Registering Authority to refuse registration of a document relating to immovable property if the presenter does not produce the previous original deed by which the executant acquired right over the subject property and an Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property obtained within ten days from the date of presentation. The Hon'ble Apex Court declared Rule 55A of the Registration Rules as framed by State of Tamil Nadu as ultra vires and held as under:-
"15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.
16. Therefore, assuming that there is a power under Section 69 of the 1908 act to frame the Rules, Rule 55A(i) is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Due to the inconsistencies, Rule 55A(i) will have to be declared ultra vires the 1908 Act. The rulemaking power under Section 69 cannot be exercised to make a Rule that is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1908 Act. Rule 55A(i) is accordingly declared as ultra vires the 1908 Act."7
2025:JHHC:33096
22. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid Judgments also, it would be evident that the State cannot impose restrictions on registration of any document and cannot look into title or possession of the executant before registering the said document presented before it.
23. Admittedly, Section 22A of the Registration Act has been declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata (supra) and Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) respectively. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 and Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016, being Executive order, issued to give effect to Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 cannot sustain in eye of law when Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 itself has been declared ultra vires.
24. Hence, the Notification contained in Memo No. 195 dated 19.02.2016 issued by Respondent No. 1 and Memo No. 371 dated 13.06.2016 issued by Respondent No. 2, is hereby, quashed and set aside being inconsistent with the provisions of the Registration Act 1908.
25. Consequently, the requirement of Land Possession Certificate for carrying out registration is held to be illegal. The committee for the purpose of granting the Land Possession Certificate is also declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
26. It is made clear that the Registering Authority shall not demand a Land Possession Certificate for the purpose of registering any document presented before it.
27. As a result, this writ petition stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) November 03, 2025 Fahim/-
AFR/NAFR Uploaded on 06/11/2025 8