Archana Suman vs State of Jharkhand

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The proforma respondents who were Vendor of the petitioner, executed Sale Deed on 21.12.2000 in respect of property consisting of land together with structures standing over R.S. Plot No. 97, Thana No. 207, Khewat No. 8, Khata No. 197, Municipal Holding No. 242, Ward No. 29, House No. 3/68, having an area of 2 Katha situated at Mohalla � New Area, Gandhi Nagar, Mouza � Hinoo, P.S. - Doranda, District � Ranchi. All the proforma respondents/ vendors are said to be widow and sons of Late Rajendra Prasad Sao who had purchased said land from one Md. Kamar, son of Md. Mansoor Ali through registered Sale Deed dated 08.08.1973 (Annexure - 1). Correction Slip in the name of petitioner''s vendor is enclosed as Annexure - 2 to the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Sale Deed dated 21.12.2000 was presented by vendors before the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi for its registration it was admitted and registration receipt (Chirkut) was also issued but the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) refused to receive registration fee on the ground that the landed property is subject matter of Sale Deed under Land Ceiling Act. The petitioner/ purchaser has now approached this Court for a direction to the respondent no. 3 to register Sale Deed executed by proforma respondents on 21.12.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plea of pendency of Land Ceiling Case bearing No. 355/76 before the appropriate officer as indicated through statements made in the counter affidavit and the Letter No. 453 dated 20.12.2000 of the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, does not stand in the eyes of law as Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide Notification dated 24.01.2011, Annexure - A to the counter affidavit. It is contended that after repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling Act with effect from the date of Resolution in the State of Jharkhand, there can be no pending Land Ceiling proceeding. The refusal to register the Sale Deed and the land in question by the respondent no. 3 now becomes untenable in law.

It is submitted that the proceeding, if any, would also have no meaning as the land in question were sold to the vendor of the petitioner''s vendor in the year 1973 itself by Md. Kamar vide Sale Deed dated 08.08.1973 (Annexure - 1) while cut off date under the Urban Land Ceiling Act was 17.02.1975. It is submitted that a fresh consideration is required in respect of the registration of Sale Deed presented by the petitioner which has also not been returned to the petitioner or her vendor by the respondent no. 3.

Learned counsel for the State has referred to the contents of the counter affidavit as per which the Sale Deed was not registered as per letter dated 20.12.2000 of the Additional Collector Land Ceiling and report of pendency of the Ceiling case.

Be that as it may, the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) is required to take a fresh decision in respect of the matter of registration of Sale Deed in question in accordance with law and also taking into account the legal effect of the repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act as adopted by the State Government also through Resolution dated 24.01.2011 (Annexure - A). The respondent no. 3 while taking such decision would also take into account the Judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Raj Rajeshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and others in W.P.(C) No. 6184 of 2014 which lays down the guidelines to be observed by any registering authority in the matter of registration of any documents presented before it. The respondent no. 3 will also take into account the Circulars and Guidelines issued on the subject by the Land Reforms and Revenue Department of the Government. In case for any valid reason the respondent no. 3 refuses to register the Sale Deed, it is obliged to endorse the reasons for its rejection on the Sale Deed in terms of Section 71 of the Act which may be appellable before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act.

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations with liberty to the petitioner/ vendor (proforma respondents) to approach the respondent no. 3 for registration of the Sale Deed in question. However, observations made herein would not be treated as any comments on the question of registration of the instrument by the respondent no. 3 which is to be considered on objective grounds and in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.