Leela Choudhury vs Bina Saikia & Ors

The instant writ appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 2016, passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.249 of 2015 (Dr. (Mrs.) Valensha Surong Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors).

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:-

"16. After going through the other judgments relied by the learned counsels, I am of the humble view that the principles laid down in those judgments do not match with the facts and circumstances of this instant case. Further more, when a document is presented before the District Registrar Office or Sub-Registrar Office, it is their duty to register the document if the documents are in order and stamp duty paid are in accordance with the Stamp Act. The Registrar Authority has no power to ask or to decide the title. Registration of documents is purely an executive work, and not at all judicial work. So, the Registering Authority is not supposed to ask for unnecessary documents or proof, as if, it is sitting as court to adjudicate the matter.

Besides that, here the intending purchaser i.e. the petitioner No. 1 is a Scheduled Tribe belonging to the Khasi community of the State of Meghalaya, as such; the Land Transfer Act, 1971 is not a barrier at all. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the laws laid down as discussed above, I hereby direct the respondent No. 1 and 2 to grant the permission for transfer of the said land (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) as applied by the petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 05.05.2006 within a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order as the matter is pending since 2006.

With these observations and directions, this instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of."

The appellant before us, Smti. Leela Choudhury, was the private respondent No.3, before the writ Court.

The issue before the writ Court centered around non-grant of permission for transfer of leasehold right in respect of Plot No.4, Umpling Revenue Block, Shillong, in favour of respondent No.1 herein (being the writ petitioner No.1) by the concerned respondent authorities. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the writ petitioner No.1, is a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe community of Meghalaya and is also the daughter-in-law of the writ petitioner No.2 (Smti. Bina Saikia). The writ petitioner No.2 is the Power of Attorney holder of Smti. Leela Choudhury. Smti. Leela Choudhury is the lease-holder of the plot-in-question. The Power of Attorney granted in favour of the writ petitioner No.2 (Smti. Bina Saikia) by Smti. Leela Choudhury, is a registered Power of Attorney, which was registered on 17th June, 1988. Since the writ petitioner No.1, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Valensha Surong, is a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe community of Meghalaya and the ban of transfer of land under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971, does not apply in respect of the writ petitioner No.1, she, as the intending buyer alongwith the writ petitioner No.2, being the registered Power of Attorney holder, submitted a joint application dated 5th May, 2006, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, for grant of permission for transfer of leasehold right in respect of the said property in favour of the writ petitioner No.1. However, there was no positive action forthcoming from the respondent authorities. In the meanwhile, the lease-holder (Smti. Leela Choudhury), being the appellant before us, filed an objection dated 30th May, 2013, before the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, objecting to the grant of permission for transfer of the leasehold right of the said property in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 and also issued another letter dated 28th August, 2013 to the writ petitioner No.2 (Smti. Bina Saikia), revoking the General Power of Attorney dated 17th June, 1988, with retrospective effect.

This revocation of the General Power of Attorney became a subject-matter of challenge before a competent Civil Court where a suit was filed by Smti. Bina Saikia, being Title Suit No.414 of 2013. The competent Civil Court was the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. This Title Suit was decreed in favour of Smti. Bina Saikia, in terms of a judgment and order dated 25th June, 2015. It was held by the learned Civil Court that the General Power of Attorney dated 17th June, 1988 and the Money Receipt dated 28th June, 1985, were valid and binding on the parties and the revocation of Power of Attorney by Smti. Leela Choudhury, was null and void. Further, the executant of the Power of Attorney dated 17th June, 1988 was still alive and as such, the said General Power of Attorney dated 17th June, 1988, was valid and operative till date. Further, the writ petitioner No.1 [Dr. (Mrs) Valensha Surong], being a member of the Khasi Scheduled Tribe community of Meghalaya, there was absolutely no bar under any law to restrain transfer of the said property from Smti. Bina Saikia (being writ petitioner No.2) to her, i.e., Dr. (Mrs) Valensha Surong.

In view of inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to grant permission for transfer of leasehold right in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 [Dr. (Mrs) Valensha Surong] for more than nine years, the writ petitioners approached the writ Court seeking issuance, inter alia, of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to forthwith grant permission for transfer of leasehold right of Plot No.4, Umpling Revenue Block, Shillong, in favour of the writ petitioner No.1.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in the manner as quoted at the outset.

During the course of hearing, we have been informed by the learned advocates for the parties that an application was taken out by the appellant before the competent Civil Court for setting aside of the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed. No appeal has been preferred therefrom till date.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as stated above, we do not find any palpable infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which would warrant interference in an Intra-Court Mandamus appeal since interference in such a case is usually warranted only if palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order.

While disposing of the writ appeal, we, however, make it clear that if the respondent authorities have granted any permission for allowing transfer of land in favour of the writ petitioner No.1, the same shall always abide by any further order that may be passed by any competent Civil Court.

With the above observation, the instant writ appeal stands disposed of while upholding the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.