High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 08 JH CK 0042

Anikant Pyarelal Ohdar vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 21 August 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 5250 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 366 words

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

1.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of land sought to be executed by the mother of the petitioner in his favour by the District Sub Registrar, Gumla (R-4) with respect to 0.23 decimal of land under Khata No.160, Plot No.711 situated in Mauza Salegutu, District Gumla.

2.

As per the case of the petitioner, 1.82 acre of land of the said Plot and Khata was recorded in the name of great grandfather of the husband of Lilawati Devi, who is vendor and mother of the petitioner. She claims to have inherited 23 decimal of land of the said plot which was purchased by the petitioner for opening of retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum regarding which letter of intent has been issued on 05.01.2021 by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation.

3.

Despite depositing stamp duty and other requisite fees, the sale deed has not been registered, only for the reason that land possession certificate was not issued by the Circle Officer on the plea that the said land was not partitioned.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that it is settled position of law that registering authorities is not required to examine the title of the property which is sought to be transferred by way of document of conveyance. The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by long line of judicial precedents. Reliance is placed on ratio decided by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5184 of 2014 and its connected matters and in L.P.A. No.321 of 2012.

5.

Learned counsel on behalf of answering respondents submits that the land was not partitioned between co-sharers of the recorded tenant and the

Land Possession Certificate was also not issued therefore, the registration was denied.

6.

Having considered the rival submissions and the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the registration of the deed of conveyance cannot be denied on the ground of title or possession of the party concerned.

Respondent No.4 is directed to register the deed of conveyance within four weeks of the order, if other conditions are satisfied regarding payment, stamp duty and other.

The writ petition is allowed.