IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16103 of 2006 MAHANT SAGAR DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 20/4/2009 Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application has made a prayer to the following effect:- “That this is an application on behalf of the above named petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions whereby and whereunder, the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent no.3 may be directed to allow registration of all the sale deed executed by the petitioner for transfer of his landed property situated at Mauza Budhuali, Thana no. 188, Khata no. 27, S.P.No. 211 in District- Sheikhpura in favour of one Baso Devi W/O Late Bhagwan Das Yadav, Resident of Mohalla- Budhagli, P.S. & District- Sheikhpura.” The factual matrix which would require to be taken into account is that it is the claim of the petitioner which is also substantiated from the original document that six sale deeds were presented for registration after duly authenticated on 18.8.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that such documents could not be registered on an objection raised by the office of the Sub.Registrar that prior permission of Bihar State Hindu Religious Trust Board was not obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner on the strength of judgment of the Civil Court as affirmed by this Court allegedly took a plea that such requirement of permission of the Religious Trust Board was not required in this case because on contest with 2 the Board the matter was decided in favour of the petitioner holding that the land in question belongs to the Guru of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the documents were not registered and ultimately when period of four months expired, the petitioner became apprehensive that the value of the entire stamp on which such documents were executed would become redundant and useless in terms of section 23 and that is how after his effort before the authority had failed, he has filed this writ application. In the counter affidavit the respondents have straight way denied presentation of such documents for registration and the learned counsel for the State by taking support from section 23 read with section 25 of the Indian Registration Act submits that it is within the competence of the Registrar to accept any document after a period of eight months, four months under section 23 of the Act and extendable by another period of four months in terms of section 25 of the Act. This Court would find that normally a person having purchased the stamp paper for getting the document executed in all respect could not have kept at home unless he had some other malafide design. In this case even those malafide design will not be available as the lis was between the Guru of the petitioner and the religious trust Board and once that matter had already been decided in favour of Guru of the petitioner, holding the trust property to be a private trust, this Court would presume that the petitioner had got the stamp paper purchased to get the document 3 registered. The presentation of the documents, however, is being seriously refuted in the counter affidavit and there is no material before this Court to hold that the stand of the respondents is incorrect. In such a situation all that this Court can do is to direct the Registrar to hold enquiry and find out as to whether these documents as a matter of fact were presented for registration on 18.8.2004. While holding enquiry an opportunity of hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioner by the Registrar to prove the fact of presentation of documents on 18.8.2004. If on such enquiry the Registrar would come to a conclusion that as a matter of fact these documents were presented for registration but were not accepted only on account of the alleged objection of absence of permission from the Religious Trust Board, he would direct for registration of the documents by taking into account the stamps which were already purchased by the petitioner and presented on 18.8.2004. If on the other hand, the Registrar will come to a conclusion that there is nothing to show that these documents were ever presented for registration, he will pass a speaking order and thereafter the petitioner, if so advised, will have to do all the needful as if six documents presented by him, were produced afresh for its registration. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)