AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the District Sub-Registrar, Latehar has refused to register the document presented for registration saying that the title of the Petitioner will be inquire into, but on request no ground has been given to him in writing. It is further submitted that the registration can be refused only on specific grounds and not on the said ground. It is further submitted that if the Petitioner has got no right, title, interest or possession over the property in question, only by registration he will not acquire it. He relied on 2009 (4) JCR 279 of Shakuntala Devi v. State of Jharkhand and 2003 (2) JLJR 230 in the case of Nageshwar Thakur and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand.
Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that in the absence of instruction he is not in a position to accept or controvert the submissions made by the Petitioner. He further submitted that there is no reasoned order refusing registration and therefore, it is not known on what ground it is rejected.
In the circumstances, Petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the District Sub-Registrar, Latehar - Respondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 will consider the relevant provisions of law, the said judgments, including the said submission of the Petitioner that if he has got no right, title, interest or possession over the property, the registration will not create any proof for the same in favor of the Petitioner. If he finds that there is no legal impediment in registering the document, it will be registered. If he finds that it cannot be registered for any reason, he will communicate the same to the Petitioner. This exercise should be completed as early as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of such representation.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.