2025:JHHC:24712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3057 of 2017 1. Shabana Parveen wife of Jamil Akhtar 2. Samsun Nissa, wife of Gulam Rasool Ansari Both residents of Kadri Mohalla, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 3. The Circle Officer, Chas, District Bokaro. 4. The District Sub-Registrar, Bokaro. 5. Sairun Nisha wife of Mir Kasim Ansari, resident of Ghoush Nagar, Bharra, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro. …… Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. For the State : None For the Resp.No.5 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. ----- 06/21.08.2025 Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the State though Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 is present. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notice dated 18.05.2017 issued by the respondent no.4 in Misc. Case No.02 of 2017 directing the petitioners to appear before him with attested documents so that an action in accordance with law can be taken against the petitioners. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the report as contained in letter no.534 dated 15.04.2017 prepared by the respondent no.3 wherein report has been sent to the respondent no.4 for cancellation of the sale deed no.244 dated 04.02.2017. Pursuant to the amendment application having been allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2018, the petitioner has also made a challenge to the show- cause notice dated 27.10.2017 in Misc. Case No.02 of 2017 wherein the husband of the petitioner no.1 has been directed to remain present before the respondent no.4 on 31.01.2017 with relevant documents. 2 Submission has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.4 does not have any jurisdiction to entertain any complaint made by the respondent no.5, particularly on account of the fact that the sale deed has already been registered. It has been submitted that the respondent no.5, if at all has any grievance, can move before the competent Civil Court for redressal of her grievance. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the respondent no.4 has merely issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners and the petitioners can bring to the notice of the respondent no.4 all relevant facts. It has been submitted that the respondent no.4 does have the jurisdiction to issue notice in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioners had purchased a plot of land pertaining to Khata No.136, Plot No.283, total area 6 decimals vide registered sale deed no.244 dated 04.02.2017 from the power of attorney holders i.e. the husbands of petitioner nos.1 and 2. The respondent no.5 had made an application before the Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro praying for cancellation of sale deed no.244 dated 04.02.2017. Consequent to the complaint made direction was issued to Halka Karamchari to submit a report regarding the said plot of land and after survey a report was submitted to the Circle Officer, Chas which was sent to the respondent no.4 wherein a request was made to cancel the sale deed no.244 dated 04.02.2017 executed in favour of the petitioners. Subsequent thereto the respondent no.4 has registered Misc. Case No. 02/2017 and also has served a notice on 18.05.2017 upon the petitioners directing them to remain physically present before him with the original attested documents so that necessary steps can be taken in accordance with law. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the position is the same as it existed when the writ application was preferred as the show-cause notice has not been acted upon by the respondent no.4 as yet. 3 What we gather from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties is that there is a dispute with respect to the sale of the subject matter of this writ application as the respondent no.5 claims that the said property was purchased by her much prior to the execution of the sale deed by the power of attorney holders in favour of the petitioners which led to the sale deed being registered vide sale deed no.244 dated 04.02.2017. At the present moment it seems that only a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners to appear before the respondent no.4 with original attested documents and submit their case pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent no.5 regarding the purported fraudulent transaction which had been entered into by the petitioners. The petitioners as has been stated by the learned counsel, have not appeared before the respondent no.4 and at the present moment it would be premature to consider the controversy between the parties by the Writ Court, as the same is best left open for the respondent no.4 to consider and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In view of the above therefore, this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to appear before the respondent no.4 along with necessary documents as directed in the notice dated 18.05.2017 and place their case before the respondent no.4 who shall also take into consideration the grievance of the respondent no.5 and may pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The respondent no.4 shall also take into consideration the claim of the petitioners that he does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent no.5 as the dispute can only be a subject matter of a Suit before the Civil Court. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Shamim/-