presented by the petitioner does not reflect the specific reasons after due
application of mind before its return. The District Sub-Registrar
-respondent no. 4 is, therefore, required to record specific reasons for its
rejection, if any, after due application of mind in accordance with law
taking into account the circulars and the guidelines issued by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand as
well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajrajeshwar
Prasad Singh Chandel in W.P.(C) No. 6184/2014 reported in 2015 (3)
JCR 598 (Jhr.). Accordingly the impugned order is quashed for the
aforesaid reasons.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1630 of 2015
Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal
V
State of Jharkhand.
Dated: 03.01.2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 Jharkhand 21
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Petitioner is the vendee of a piece of land executed by sale
through an instrument by one Binod Kumar Rai son of Krishnadev Rai,
village and Post Khaira Chatar, P.S. - Kasmar, District- Bokaro in respect
of a piece of land bearing Plot No. 236, Khata No. - 118, Khewat No.- 01,
Tauzi No.- 28, Thana No. - 144 having an area of 7 decimals in Mauza
Khaira Chatar of Kasmar Police Station, Pargana Gola, District- Bokaro
who presented it for registration before the respondent no. 4- District SubRegistrar,
Bokaro. The sale deed was returned with an endorsement
referring to the letter no. 368 dated 02nd April, 2012 and letter no. 49 dated
05th January, 2012 issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
In the counter affidavit respondent-State has taken a plea on
the basis of these letters that the sale deed for the aforesaid piece of land
presented for registration is a Gair Majarua land according to cadestral
survey record. Annexure-C is the list containing such lands falling in the
category of Gair Majarua Khas/Aam/Keshar-e-Hind. The instant piece of
land is shown at serial no. 711 of the list under the category of Gair
Majarua Khas.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order
impugned is not even a rejection of the presentation of sale deed, rather it
has only been returned. It cannot, therefore, be a subject matter of an
appeal as such under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Moreover, no specific reasons have been disclosed in the endorsement
either. Respondent No. 4 was required to inscribe adequate reasons for
its rejection which could have been assailed before the Appellate
Authority. The reliance of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated
05th January, 2012 makes it all the more unamenable to the appeal before
the same authority of the District concerned.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that Gair
Majarua land as described in Annexure – C of the counter affidavit falls in
the category of lands which are prohibited from transfer. Therefore, the
respondent no. 4 on instruction issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3
has returned the same to the petitioner. Petitioner has not refuted the
aforesaid fact by way of any rejoinder either.
Considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the
relevant facts pleaded. The impugned endorsement on the sale deed
presented by the petitioner does not reflect the specific reasons after due
application of mind before its return. The District Sub-Registrar
-respondent no. 4 is, therefore, required to record specific reasons for its
rejection, if any, after due application of mind in accordance with law
taking into account the circulars and the guidelines issued by the
Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand as
well as the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajrajeshwar
Prasad Singh Chandel in W.P.(C) No. 6184/2014 reported in 2015 (3)
JCR 598 (Jhr.). Accordingly the impugned order is quashed for the
aforesaid reasons. Let it be made clear that this Court has not expressed
any comment on the merits of the case as to whether the document
presented for registration is fit for registration or not in accordance with
law. It goes without saying that it is the vendor of the petitioner who is
supposed to present the sale deed, if required, along with the petitioner
before the respondent no. 4 for its registration now, in accordance with
law.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid manner.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Shamim/Srikant
No comments:
Post a Comment