State of Jharkhand and Others vs Shailendra Kumar Sinha

The defect, as pointed out by the Office, is ignored. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned Accordingly, I.A. No. 2624 of 2012 stands disposed of.

The Appellants are aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26th June, 2012, by which direction was issued to the registering authority to register the deeds presented by the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the vendor relied upon the document registered in the year 1982 at Kolkata and the Kolkata registering authority had no jurisdiction to register the said document. It is also submitted that the order of registering authority is appellable order under the provisions of the Act and the writ petitioner-respondent did not prefer any appeal. It is also submitted that the Deputy Collector issued an order restricting the transfer of the property by an order dated 22nd December, 1992.

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that the registering authority is not a civil adjudicatory authority, who can decide with respect to the title of any of the party, may be he vendor or may he be purchaser to get the title after transfer of the property by the transfer deed. It is also submitted that in view of the above reasons, the registering authority had no jurisdiction to even look into the validity and legality of the registering document of the year 1982 which was registered at Kolkata. It is also submitted that the District Collector may have issued any restriction order in the year 1992 but he is also not empowered to pass blanket order against the registration of the documents, which virtually amounts to take away the right of the lawful owner to transfer the immoveable property and putting such restriction in perpetuity is illegal.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 26th June, 2012. The learned Single Judge has carefully considered the relevant provisions as well as the Bihar Amendment Act, 1991 and also considered the alleged restriction order passed by the Deputy Collector on 22nd December, 1992. We are of the considered opinion that there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that registering authority is not a civil adjudicatory authority, who can decide the legality and validity of the title of the vendor and his jurisdiction is limited to see that right parties have presented the documents with requisite stamp duty on it and he could have refuse the registration only for limited reasons and none of such reason, as is available in the provisions of the Registration Act and Rules. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.