2025:JHHC:30927 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 7200 of 2023 --------- Paresh Nayak, aged about 80 years, son of Late Shiv Prasad Nayak, resident of Village- Obariya, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi; 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi, P.O.- GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 3. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 4. District Sub Registrar, Ranchi, P.O.-GPO, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 5. Circle Officer, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District -Ranchi; .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kr. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV --------- 09/Dated:-07.10.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw I.A. No.10883 of 2025 which has been preferred by the petitioner for early hearing. 2. Permission is accorded; accordingly, I.A. No.10883 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn. With consent of the both the parties, the main application has been heard. 3. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ(s) /Order (s) /Direction(s) for quashing Impugned Order passed by the respondent No:2, as contained in Memo No: 4771(ii) dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure-5) whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for deleting the lands measuring an area of 6.75 Acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 610, 611, 612, 615, 624, 625, 629 and 1051 under Khata No: 183 in Mouza- Dungri in the district of Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the "lands-in-question" for the sake of brevity) from Prohibited List has been rejected; 2025:JHHC:30927 2 For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order commanding upon the respondents to delete aforesaid "lands-in-question" from the Prohibited List and within a specified period; 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court praying therein for issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to release the land from the prohibited list which was unilaterally kept in the said prohibited list by the State Government. The said writ application was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue with regard to keeping any land in prohibited list has been set at rest in the case of Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(C) No. 847 of 2023). Further, the issue was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 5088 of 2018; as such, now nothing remains to be adjudicated in view of the settled proposition of law that the respondent State has no authority to keep any land in prohibited list that too without giving any notice. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent could not oppose the aforesaid settled proposition that the issue of keeping the land under prohibited list has been set at rest in the case of Brinda Devi (supra) and further in W.P. (C) No. 5088 of 2018 with analogous cases, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has struck down the notification by holding as under: “1. In these matters, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as introduced by the 2025:JHHC:30927 3 State of Bihar vide the Bihar Amendment 6 of 1991 which has also been adopted by the State of Jharkhand, and the consequential notification issued thereunder being notification No.1132 dated 26.08.2015. 2. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of Jharkhand is as under: “22-A. Registration of documents which is against the public policy.- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is against the public policy. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register any document to which the notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.” 3. Admittedly, similar amendment made in the State of Rajasthan came to be considered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Basant Nahata . 4. The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the doctrine of “public policy” is vague and uncertain and there are no guidelines to interpret the same. It held that it is not possible to define “public policy” with precision at any point of time and it is not for the Executive to fill the grey areas as the said power vests in the judiciary. It held that whenever interpretation of concept “public policy” is required to be considered, it is for the judiciary to do so and in doing so, even the power of the judiciary is very limited. It held that what is essentially within the exclusive domain of the judiciary cannot be delegated to the Executive unless the policy behind the same is finally laid down. It rejected the plea raised in that case on behalf of State of Rajasthan that the State, being higher authority, having been delegated with the power of making declaration in terms of Section 22-A of the Act, would not abuse it and held that the provision of Section 22-A is ultra vires Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution of India. It also rejected the plea of the State of Rajasthan that it being a policy decision, Court ought not to interfere. It held that a legislative policy must conform to the provisions of the constitutional mandates and that even otherwise, such a policy decision is subject to judicial review. 5. Having regard to the said decision of the Supreme Court, which is binding on this Court, and since the provision considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment is identical to the provision framed by the Bihar State, which is adopted by the State of Jharkhand, Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act 6 of 1991 and as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, as well as the consequential Notification issued under the said provision on 26.08.2015 are struck down and all orders passed by the Sub Registrars or the officials of the Registration Department pursuant to the notification 26.08.2015 shall stand set aside. 6. The writ petitions are allowed only to the extent as stated above and all others issues raised by the petitioners are left open. 7. Pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.” 7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual scenario, when the notification itself, has been quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.5088 of 2018, the instant writ application succeeds and the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the property from the 2025:JHHC:30927 4 prohibited list as early as possible but not beyond a period of eight weeks from today. 8. As a result, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, also stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) OCTOBER 7, 2025 vikas/- NAFR