IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7865 of 2007 ARBIND PODDAR Son of Sri Sheo Bhagwan Poddar, resident of Mohalla Jawahar Lal Road, P.O. and P.S. Muzaffarpur Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi. 3. Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi. 4. Sub Registrar, Runnisaidpur, District Sitamarhi. 5. Sub Registrar, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. 6. Smt. Anuradha Mehta @ Anuradha Mundakar D/o Late Rabindra Nath Mehta, w/o Sri Valmik Mundakar, r/o A C 270, Maidan Garhi Road, Chhattapur Enclave, New Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. S. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mukesh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Tejpal Singh Kang, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 10/ 09.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and the respondents. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the letter dated 01.09.2006 issued by Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi whereby he restrained respondent nos. 4 and 5 for registering sale deed executed by petitioner. He has also prayed for quashing the entire proceeding staying the registration of his sale deed, as well as for direction to the respondents to place aforesaid order on record. He contends that the action of the respondents is without jurisdiction and they have no authorities to restrain the respondent nos. 4 and 5 from registering the duly executed sale deeds. According to the petitioner, the land in dispute belonged to late Ravindra Nath Mahto against whom Land Ceiling Case no. 1 of 1973- 74 was initiated. Late Ravindra Nath Mahto died during the pendency of Ceiling proceeding and his daughter Smt. Anuradha Mehta was - 2 - substituted in his place. The Ceiling proceeding, which was in second round of litigation was decided on 17.05.2000 against her. In appeal Smt. Anuradha Mehta succeeded and was allowed to retain 90 acres of land in Samastipur, besides house and land in Muzaffarpur also. However, 41.12 acres of land was declared surplus. A copy of order dated 31.05.2002 passed in Ceiling Appeal No.1 of 2000 is annexed as Annexure-1. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of Collector, a notification was issued with necessary amendment. A copy of notification has been annexed as Annexure-2. Petitioner submitted that Smt. Anuradha Mehta lived mostly at Delhi and she executed General Power of Attorney in favour of one Amit Kumar Salampuria for executing sale of certain plots vide General Power of Attorney dated 22.11.2002 and 10.12.2003 / 12.12.2003. Aforesaid Amit Kumar Salampuria executed six sale deeds totaling 12.63 acres of land of Muzaffarpur and Samastipur Districts in favour of petitioner, the details of the land mentioned in paragraph 8 of the writ application is being reproduced hereinbelow also: Date Vendor Vendee Khata Plot Area Village 06.9.03 Amit Kr. Arbind 614 2675 0.10 Kanhauli Salampuria Poddar 2671 Muzaffarpur 18.3.04 Do Do 1563 8823 3.25 Runnisaidpur 24.3.04 Do Do 1563 8823 3.25 do 24.3.04 Do Do 1563 0823 3.25 do 29.3.04 Do Do 614 2675 0.10 Kanhauli 2671 Muzaffarpur On the basis of the sale deeds, the name of the petitioner was - 3 - mutated and registered in Government record and he has been duly paying rent receipts. Copy of some rent receipts by way of example have been annexed as Annexure-4 series. In the mean time some people, who was having no concern with the land, filed an application before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, that Land Ceiling case is still pending. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi, on 27.08.2005 vide his letter no. 1818 directed District Sub- Registrar, Sitamarhi, not to execute the sale deed without prior permission of competent authority, a copy of letter dated 27.08.2005 of Additional Collector has been annexed as Annexure-5. The petitioner states that the aforesaid letter was issued without hearing either him or even Amit Kumar Salampuria, as such latter met Additional Collector and placed all the facts before him. Mr. Amit Kumar Salampuria appraised the Additional Collector that some people like Birendra Kumar Thakur have tried to project false facts before him. He also made available a copy of order dated 31.05.2002, passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 01 of 2000 of Collector in the land ceiling proceeding. He submitted that the Land Ceiling proceeding had concluded. The Additional Collector being satisfied with request and documents placed before him, recalled his earlier order dated 27.08.2005. However, Additional Collector again changed his stand and vide letter no. 1648 dated 01.09.2006 directed Sub Registrar, Sitamarhi not to register the land of Smt. Anuradha Mehta. In spite of request made, copy of aforesaid letter dated 01.09.2006 was not furnished to - 4 - the petitioner. The petitioner on 22.11.2006 represented to the Additional Collector for lifting the ban. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-6. The Additional Collector, however, without considering the relevant facts, again rejected the prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for certified copy, but did not get the same despite his representation dated 30.03.2007. The petitioner states that the respondents have restrained the Sub Registrar for registering the documents even without ascertaining whether any Land Ceiling Proceeding is pending or not. Smt. Anuradha Mehta, who has been added as intervener respondent has filed counter affidavit. She has opposed the writ application. She contends that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has not made her even a party respondent, though she was a necessary party. She submits that she has cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner and his brother-in-law Amit Kumar Salampuria on 03.10.2005 and 04.10.2005. The petitioner suppressed the aforesaid facts in this writ application and thus has not approached this Court with clean hands. She states that as petitioner has suppressed the material facts, no relief can be granted by this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction in view of the decision in case of State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Harbans Oraon reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 102 and Hardeo Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2002 (2) PLJR page 53. The intervener respondent alleges that Amit Kumar Salampuria in connivance with the petitioner did not act in her interest after - 5 - execution of power of attorney and thus, have rightly been restrained from executing any sale deed on the basis of General Power of Attorney. She states that petitioner ought to have first moved before the appellate authority under the Registration Act, 1908, instead of moving this Court. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. He submitted that the Land Ceiling Proceeding is still pending. In support of his submission he has referred to Annexure-A, which is a letter from Collector Sitamarhi, dated 09.07.2002 to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Revenue and Land Reforms Department. He also refers to Annexure B, which is a communication dated 02.09.2004 by Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that the Hon‟ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms has given direction for issuance of notice to the land holder in case no. 03 of 2003-04 / 02 of 1973-74. He submits that under Section 71 of the Registration Act, the registering officer is competent for valid reasons not to admit execution of documents. The petitioner replies that the allegation that he did not come out with clean hands, is false and mischievous. He submits that all the six sale deeds executed in his favour by Amit Kumar Salampuria, the holder of Power of Attorney is prior to 03.10.2005. All these sale deeds are valid documents, as Smt. Anuradha Mehta does not deny that she has not executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Amit Kumar Salampuria for sale of land in question. The petitioner submits that he has filed documents for execution of those lands, which was transferred to him by the aforesaid sale deeds prior to 03.10.2005 by Amit Kumar - 6 - Salampuria. All the land so transferred by six sale deeds, mentioned above in his favour, have been duly mutated in his name in the Government record. He submits that he has no knowledge that aforesaid Power of Attorney has been cancelled. He submits that it is not correct to state that the Land Ceiling Proceeding has been opened under Section 45 B of the Land Ceiling Act, as no order in terms of same has been passed nor any such order of reopening has been brought on record. The main issue is whether the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to restrain the District Sub-Registrar from registering a sale deed on the ground that a proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act has been initiated. Secondly; Whether the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands. The intervener respondent alleges that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, as such, I would take up this issue first. The petitioner has specifically stated that he had no knowledge that Power of Attorney has been cancelled. He further submits that six sale deeds in question were registered in his favour much prior to cancellation of Power of Attorney in 1st week of October, 2005 made in favour of Amit Kumar Salampuria. According to him, he acquired valid right and title over the land, so purchased from Amit Kumar Salampuria, as admittedly the Power of Attorney was still at least in operation. The petitioner was not seeking any transfer of land from Amit Kumar Salampuria nor he was transferring land on basis of any power of attorney issued in his favour. He was transferring the land - 7 - which he had already acquired from Amil Kumar Slampuria prior to revocation of Power of Attorney in the first week of October, 2005. The petitioner submitted that revocation of Power of Attorney was not very relevant, as he sought to transfer the land which he had got from holder of power of attorney, prior to its revocation. There is no material on record to show that petitioner had knowledge of revocation of Power of Attorney, which was cancelled in the first week of October, 2005. Further more, the petitioner in the instant writ application had prayed for quashing the order of respondent no.3, by which he had restrained the respondent no.4 from registering the land on basis of Power of Attorney on ground of pendency of Land Ceiling Proceeding. As per petitioner he sought registration of land, which was transferred in his favour by Amit Kumar Salampuria prior to revocation of Power of Attorney in 2005. Though it is desirable that petitioner ought to have stated about revocation, if it was in his knowledge, but the same would not go to the root of issue so far it relates to limited subject matter of dispute. The case referred to by learned counsel for the private respondent in case of State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Harbans Oraon and Hardeo Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar (supra) would not be of much relevance. In the aforesaid cases, this Court disallowed the reliefs to the petitioner, as facts suppressed by them had direct relevance with the reliefs claimed in the aforesaid writ application. Thus, the writ application cannot be rejected on the ground of suppression of fact. In the instant case, the power of attorney was revoked in October, 2005, as - 8 - petitioner sought registration of sale deeds of land already transferred to him by holder of power of attorney prior to its revocation. Thus, the writ application cannot be rejected on the ground of suppression of facts. Now I come to the next issue whether during the pendency of proceeding under Section 45 B, can the Additional Collector restrain the authorities from executing registration of sale deeds. Sections 6 of the Registration Act provide that State Government may appoint Registrar and Sub-Registrars in a District. Section 11 provides that the Registrar in his absence may appoint any Sub-Registrar. Section 28 states that Sub-registrar will register a document, only when the whole or some portion of property to which document relates is situated within its sub-district. Section 34 of the Registration Act provides that the registering officer would admit execution of the document by the executor, if he / she is satisfied that the persons appearing before him are the persons, that they represent in respect to execution of sale deed. Section 68 relates to power of Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrar, Section 61 relates to power of Inspector General to superintend registration office and make rules. Section 71 of the Act states that every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document shall record his reasons for his refusal. The provision in itself, however, does not state the grounds on which, registry can be refused. The same has to be inferred from other provisions in the act. Any person aggrieved from such refusal may appeal to Registrar under Section 72 of the Act, from the orders of Sub- - 9 - Registrar. It would be relevant to point out that a transferee will get no better title than that of transferor. If a person willfully transfers land or property which does not belong to him, he can be criminally liable as well. From provisions of the Act, it manifests that when a document is presented for registration, a Sub-registrar merely has to satisfy itself that stamps and fees have been duly paid; or whether the transferors, transferees and the witnesses are the persons, who are actually represented in the sale deed. It can also ascertain whether the deeds are in order; the land is free from encumbrances and not in teeth of any order of courts. Though the registering authority can prima facie satisfy itself about the genuineness of persons making registration, it cannot indulge in a roving enquiry to satisfy itself about the title of executant. A registering authority can refuse to admit execution of documents, if any of requirements mentioned above is not fulfilled. The issue is whether the Additional Collector could have restrained the District Sub-Registrar from registering the sale deeds, as a proceeding under 45(B) of the Ceiling Act is pending before the Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms. It would appear from Annexure 2, that the Ceiling case was finally adjudicated in Ceiling Appeal No. 01 of 2000 by order dated 31.05.2002. Consequently, the Collector vide notification dated 31.05.2002 directed for issuance of necessary amendment in respect of land to be held by landholder (Smt. Anuradha Mehta). The Ceiling case, as such concluded with the order of the Collector in Appeal, as no revision or writ was preferred against it. The - 10 - surplus land to the extent of 46.97 acres of land and odd was even acquired. However, the concerned file of Ceiling case no. 1 of 1973-74 was sent to the Government for its re-opening under Section 45 (b) of Bihar Land Ceiling Act vide letter no. 148 dated 09.07.2002 of Collector, Sitamarhi. It would at best appear from Annexure B and State counter affidavit that a notice has been issued by learned Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms on 13.07.2004, as to why the Ceiling proceeding under Section 45 B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 be not re- opened. It would appear from bare perusal of the provision that mere issuance of notice in no case would amount to reopening of Ceiling case under Section 45 B of the Act, unless and until there is specific order for reopening of the proceeding by the Minister incharge of Revenue and Land Reforms. Section 45 B of the Act is hereinbelow reproduced for easy reference. “The State Government [* * * * ], may at any time, call for and examine any record of any proceeding disposed of by a Collector under the Act and may, if it thinks fit, direct that the case be re-opened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act.]” A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1989 Patna 144, observed that „if a document complies with statutory requirement and formalities, as presented for registration, the registering authority is bound to register it. It would be useful to quote paragraph nos. 3 and 5 of the aforesaid judgment. - 11 - “3. It appears to us that this application can be disposed of at the state of admission inasmuch as the point in issue is limited. In our view, if a document otherwise complying with the statutory requirements and formalities is presented for registration, the registering authority is bound to register it. It is not for the registering authority to enquire and ascertain the title to its own satisfaction. Under the provisions of the T.P.Act, 1888, if the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondents also referred to S. 68 of the Registration Act, which empowers the Registrar to superintend and control Sub-Registrars. This power, in our view, is an administrative power conferred on the Registrar to exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-Registrars. The Registrar, in our view, cannot, in exercise of the power under the section, direct the Sub-Registrars not to register a document presented for registration if the document complies with the statutory requirements and formalities.” A learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Avind Kumar Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1995 (2) BLJ 1, also observed that if a document otherwise complying with the statutory requirements and formalities is presented for registration, the registering authority is bound to register it. He also observed that it is not for the registering authority to enquire and ascertain the title for its own satisfaction. - 12 - The respondents have nothing on record to show that learned Minister has passed any order re-opening the Ceiling proceeding. At the most, a request has been made under Section 45 B of the Act to reopen the proceeding. Thus, a person in absence of any stay by a court or quasi judicial authority can dispose of the land allowed to be retained by him in the concluded Ceiling Proceeding. Mere notice to reopen the proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act would not be a valid ground for refusing registration of a document of such land which has been transferred in favour of transferee by valid holder of Power of Attorney, prior to its revocation. The instant case is limited to execution of sale deeds in respect of transfers made in favour of petitioner by the holder of Power of Attorney prior to the revocation of the same in the first week of October, 2005. The petitioner has rightly not sought for transfer of land on the basis of his Power of Attorney which has been revoked. A registering authority can refuse registration only on restricted grounds under the act. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Additional Collector has no jurisdiction within the provisions of Registration Act to restrain the registering authority from executing registration of land on the ground that a notice under Section 45 B has been issued. Thus, the impugned order of Additional Collector restraining the Sub-Registrar from executing registration of sale deed is set aside. However, no fresh land or properties can be admitted in execution on the basis of aforesaid power of attorney save and except those, which has already been transacted prior to revocation in 1st week - 13 - of October, 2005, for which it was granted. This writ application is disposed of in aforesaid terms. A.F.R. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)