IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2801 of 2006 1. GANESH PRASAD SON OF LATE SHREE RAM PRASAD SAH. 2. SMT. KRISHNA DEVI W/O GANESH PRASAD. BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MILKY, P.O. ARA, POLICE STATION ARA TOWN, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR-CUM-COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 2. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR ARRAH. 3. DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. 4. KAUSHAL KUMAR VERMA SON OF SRI AWADH PRASAD RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KHETARI JAIL ROAD CHARKHAMBHA GALI, ARA, P.O. ARA, POLICE STATION ARA TOWN DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 10.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State, as also for the Private Respondent No.4 who is presently residing in the house in question raised over Plot No.4427 appertaining to Khata No.1053. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2005 passed by Additional Collector, Bhojpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1993-1994 whereunder he has directed the Sub-Registrar not to register the Sale Deed Nos. 10317 dated 16.10.1990 and 10341 dated 19.10.1990 which has been executed in regard to Plot No.4427 appertaining to Khata No. 639. It is 2 submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Additional Collector is not the authority vested with the power to direct the registering authority not to register any sale deed. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act no sooner any conveyance deed is presented for registration with adequate stamp duty the same is required to be registered by the registering authority. In support of such proposition reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment of the High Court in the case of (Mukund Lal Vs. Union of India and another) And (Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and another) reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144. 3. Counsel for the State and Private Respondent No.4 opposed the submission and stated that lands of Plot No.4427 appertaining to Khata No. 1053 has actually been transferred by the petitioner under the impugned sale deed by wrongly describing the land as of Plot No.4427 appertaining to Khata No.639. They, however, accepted the fact that Title Suit No. 3 of 1992 is pending in the Court of Munsif-2, Arrah for declaration that the lands in question are of Plot No. 4427 appertaining to Khata 3 No.1053 and not of Khata No. 639. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties and having appreciated the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, I am satisfied that Additional Collector does not have any jurisdiction to direct the registering authority not to register any conveyance deed when the same is presented for registration with adequate stamp duty. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14.10.2005 is set aside. The sale deed in question shall be subject to the result of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 3 of 1992 pending in the Court of Munsif-2, Arrah or any other Title concerning the lands in question. The revenue authorities shall, however, be at liberty to ascertain the possession of the vendor and the vendee before proceeding to mutate the lands in question in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed in question. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)