Jharkhand High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to direct respondents, particularly Respondent 3-District Sub-Registrar, Koderma to register the sale-deed which was refused to be registered upon its presentation for registration by the petitioner, Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., stated that the Revenue Officer under Section 90 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 had held that the land in question was a Raiyati land and passed mutation orders in favour of the petitioner’s father and the land revenue was paid by the petitioner’s father for a considerable period of time.
The Court stated that under such circumstances, if the sale-deed was duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there was no legal or formal defect, the Registering Authority could not refuse to register the deed if the same was presented for registration as the Registering Authority was debarred from examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale-deed presented for registration. Thus, the Court disposed of the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the said sale-deed before Respondent 3.
Background
The petitioner and four other persons presented the sale deed after completion of all the formalities as per the Registration Act, 1908 (‘the Act’) before the Respondent 3 for transfer of land. Respondent 3 refused to register the sale-deed by making endorsement on 11-01-2018 over the sale-deed to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma had put restriction over the registration of the sale-deed with respect to the land in subject matter of transfer.
Petitioner submitted that the registration of the sale-deed could not be refused except on the ground mentioned in Sections 71 and 74 of the Act and the refusal of registration of sale-deed by Respondent 3 being not for the reasons as mentioned in Sections 71 and 74 of the Act, was not sustainable in law.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that undisputed fact remains in the record was that the Revenue Officer under Section 90 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 had held that the land in question was a Raiyati land and passed mutation orders in favour of the petitioner’s father and the land revenue was paid by the petitioner’s father for a considerable period of time.
The Court stated that under such circumstances, if the sale-deed was duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there was no legal or formal defect, the Registering Authority could not refuse to register the deed if the same was presented for registration as the Registering Authority was debarred from examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale-deed presented for registration.
Therefore, the Court stated that it did not find any justification for refusal of the registration of the petitioner’s sale-deed. Thus, the Court disposed of the petition giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the said sale-deed before Respondent 3. Further, if the document was duly presented, the Respondent 3 should accept the same for registration in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
[Ajay Kumar Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2127, decided on 02-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Mithilesh Singh, GA IV; Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA IV.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
