2025:JHHC:12820 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1429 of 2023 --------- 1. Suman Rani, aged about 48 years, W/o, Anil Kumar, R/o, Rajghariya Road, Jhumari Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Telaiya, District- Koderma. 2. Sushma Rani, aged about 51 years, W/o, Pradeep Kumar, R/o, Gandhi School Road, Jhumari Telaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Telaiya, District-Koderma. ......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District-Koderma. 3. District Sub-Registrar, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District-Koderma. 4. Circle Officer, Koderma Anchal, Koderma, P.O.& P.S.- Telaiya, District- Koderma. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III --------- 07/Dated:- 28.03.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for the following reliefs: A. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Order dated 29/09/2011 contained in Memo No. 2620 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma whereby and where under general order has been passed restraining the transfer of Raiyati Land situated at various Mauza of Koderma District without taking into consideration the fact that the land of petitioner is Raiyati Land in nature and rent receipts have been issued by the Revenue Authority of the Koderma District in favour of the petitioner till the year 2008. B. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to accept the Sale Deed of petitioners land pertaining to Khata No.- 21/87, Plot No- 09/697, Mouza- Jhalpo, P.S.- Telaiya, Thana No. 01, measuring an area 7 Decimals of land situated at District Koderma and register the aforesaid Raiyati land in the name of the purchasers after presenting the Sale Deed before Respondent no. 3 and also direct the respondent authorities to allow the mutation in the name of the purchasers after applying mutation of the aforesaid land. 2025:JHHC:12820 2 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the land in question is the self acquired property of the Petitioners which was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 11.01.2005 and the Petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the land since long. They are continuously been paying the rent for the abovementioned land. The last rent receipt issued in favour of the Petitioners was vide Rent Receipt No.4601857 dated 14.08.2008. When the Petitioners wanted to sell some portion of the abovementioned land, they came to know that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma vide its Order as contained in Memo No. 2620 dated 29.09.2011 has restricted the registration of the Land in the District of Koderma falling under different Mauza and Thana. After passing of such Order dated 29.09.2011, the Sub- Registrar, Koderma had stopped the registration of the lands in the District of Koderma. The petitioners approached 3rd Respondent and presented the sale deed but the same was refused in view of the Memo No. 2620 dated 29.09.2011. Hence this writ application. 4. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that there is no doubt about the nature of land as the land in dispute is the Raiyati land of the Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent without conducting any enquiry, issued direction restricting the registration of the lands in Koderma district. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent had exceeded its jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and has imposed such restriction on the registration of the Raiyati Lands of the Petitioners which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel finally submits that the 2nd Respondent can put restrictions over registration of the sale-deed only on two grounds which are there under Sections 71 and 74 of the Registration Act and thereby any restriction put by the officer under his order as contained in Memo No.2620 dated 29.09.2011 is bad and is unsustainable in law. 2025:JHHC:12820 3 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the land in question is not a Raiyati land, rather; the land in question is Gair Majurwa Khas land, and belongs to the State Government and in order to protect the land of State Government, a Memo No. 2620 dated 29.09.2011 had been issued after assigning the reasons by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. Later on, the same issue has been upheld by Revenue, Registration and Land Revenue Department, Jharkhand which also issued a letter vide Gyapank 1132 dated 26.08.2015 and according to the guidelines of such letter, instant execution of sale deed is not possible as the land is in prohibited category for the execution of sale. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioners have purchased the land in question from the restricted caste in CNT Act, i.e., Scheduled Caste, without any permission of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma under Section 46(1) of the CNT Act; as such the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and after going through the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein; it appears that the land in question, bearing Khata No.-21/87, Plot No-09/697, Mouza-Jhalpo, P.S.-Telaiya, Thana No.-01, measuring an area of 7 Decimals, was purchased by the Petitioners vide Sale Deed dated 11.01.2005 and registered in their name way back in the year 2005 and the petitioners have been in continuous peaceful possession of the land since its purchase and were paying rent for the same and the last rent receipt issued in their favour was vide Rent Receipt No.4601857 dated 14.08.2008. 8. It further appears that the petitioners are unable to sell some portions of the land in question as the Sub–Registrar has stopped the registration of land in the District of Koderma due to the order of Deputy Commissioner as contained in Memo No. 2620 dated 29.09.2011 by which the registration of the Land in the 2025:JHHC:12820 4 District of Koderma falling under different Mauza and Thana has been restricted. 9. The moot point to be decided in this writ application is as follows: “Whether Registrar has power under Registration Act to deny registration on the basis of order passed by Deputy Commissioner?” 10. The issue in the present writ application is covered by the judgment dated 11th August, 2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4089 of 2013 (Tarkeshwar Prasad V. State of Jharkhand and Others). For brevity the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “In this respect, I may refer to the provisions, as contained in Sections 71 and 74 of the Registration Act which read as follows:- 71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. – (1) Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate within his sub- district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2, and endorse the words “registration refused” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded. (2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered. 74. Procedure of Registrar on such application :- In such case, and also where such denial as aforesaid is made before a Registrar in respect of a document presented for registration to him, the Registrar shall, as soon as conveniently may be, enquire------------ (a) whether the document has been executed; (b) whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or person presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to registration. From the perusal of the provisions as contained in Section 71 of the Act, it does appear that the Sub-Registrar can refuse registration of the sale-deed and if it is refused then he has to assign reason for its refusal, what could be those reasons for refusal to register the sale-deed, it is found out in Section 74 of the Registration Act, wherein it has been prescribed that on two conditions mentioned below, registration can be denied:- (a) whether the document has been executed; (b) whether the requirements of the law for the time being in force have been complied with on the part of the applicant or person presenting the document for registration, as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to registration. Thus, it is obvious that only on those two conditions mentioned above, the Sub-Registrar can refuse to register the sale-deeds. In that event, restriction which has been put by the Registrar is against the provisions as contained in Section 74 of the Act which could never be held to be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on account of which the Sub-Registrar refused to register sale-deed 2025:JHHC:12820 5 being invalid cannot be a ground for refusing sale-deed to be registered and hence, the Sub-Registrar, Koderma is hereby, directed to register the sale- deeds forthwith whenever it is presented for its registration...” Emphasis Supplied 11. Having regard to the settled position of law, the Order dated 29.09.2011 as contained in Memo No. 2620 (Annexure-3), issued under the signature of 2nd Respondent has no legs to stand in the eye of law; and accordingly, the same, is hereby, quashed and set aside and 3rd Respondent, is hereby, directed to register the sale-deeds forthwith, whenever it is presented for its registration. 12. Consequently, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-