IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9790 of 2008 KRISHNA SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM RATAN SINGH, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND POWER Of ATTORNEY HOLDER OF LIQUIDATOR OF COMPANIES UNDER LIQUIDATION, APPOINTED BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN COMPANY CASE NO 623 OF 1977, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 243, PATLIPUTRA COLONY, PATNA – 800 013 Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR 2 CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3 CHIEF SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIAR, PATNA 4 CHIEF SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5 COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR AT ARA 6 ZILA PARISHAD, BHOJPUR, ARA THROUGH THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BHOJPUR, ARA 7 DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR, BHOJPUR, ARA, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR 8 SUB REGISTRAR, JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR 9 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHOJPUR, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR AT ARA 10 DISTRICT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, BHOJPUR AT ARA WITH CWJC No 6641 of 2009 ARRAH SASARAM LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS WITH CWJC No 311 of 2010 1. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH @ GUDDU KUMAR S/O LATE BABAN SINGH R/O VILL- KAUNRA, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DEPTT. OF REGISTRATION, EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DEPTT. OF REGISTRATION, EXCISE AND PROHIBITION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. REGISTRAR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOJPUR AT ARA 4. DISTRICT SUB-REGISTRAR BHOJPUR AT ARA 5. SUB-REGISTRAR JAGDISHPUR, DISTT. BHOJPUR *** For the petitioners : M/s S S Dwivedi & Y V Giri, Sr Advocates With Shailesh Kr Dubey, Ranjan Kr Dubey, Sangeeta Sharma, Raju Giri & V R Bharti, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Amarnath Deo, SC X *** 2 7 21.05.2010 In these three writ petitions, one of which is under the authority of the official liquidator as appointed by the Calcutta High Court, the other is by the vendee, CWJC No 6641 of 2009 is slightly on a different issue but virtually between the same parties. In that case, what has been challenged is the order of the appellate Court under the Bihar Tenancy Act by which it has permitted State of Bihar to amend the application which had in fact been filed by Union of India and which had finally been dismissed in the year, 2000. The amendment is being permitted in the year 2009, the effect of which is a matter settled almost a decade back, is being reopened. There, the Union of India had earlier taken the plea that the lands were recorded in the cadastral survey as “Qaisar-e-Hind”. They got wrongly mutated in the name of Ara Sasaram Light Railway Company but the fact remains that the lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Bihar for the said Company and duly handed over to the said Company. In the year 2000, the proceeding ended as against Union of India holding that the entry in the name of the Company was corrected. Now, after almost a decade, the State of Bihar wants to reopen this issue in respect of part of the land. This writ application would, thus, require a separate consideration and, thus, disassociated with the rest two cases. List CWJC No 6641 of 2009 For Admission in top ten 0 cases after Annual Summer Vacation for its final disposal. So far as the remaining two writ petitions are concerned, one under the authority of the official liquidator, the other is by the vendee who has purchased the same from the official liquidator. The 3 facts relevant to these two writ petitions would be that the Company aforesaid in its hey days acquired lot of properties including land for its Railways. In due course of time, it went into liquidation. As it was registered in Kolkata, the liquidation proceeding was before the Calcutta High Court and before the Company Judge of that Court. The Company Judge appointed the Official Liquidator to take over the assets and sell the same and it is in that process, under the authority of official liquidator, that various lands were sold. Sale deeds whereof were duly executed but when the same were presented for registration, by orders of Collector, Bhojpur, the documents were stopped from being registered on the ground that it appeared that the lands belong to the State of Bihar and were wrongly been shown as lands of the Company and, as such, the sale could not be permitted. It is this stand of the State and this restriction that is being challenged. It may be relevant to note here that the District Boards of Ara and Sasaram as they filed two suits for recovery of certain money apparently being dues of the two local authorities, what was ordered by the Calcutta High Court was that from the sale proceeds of the land of the Company in liquidation, first the liability of the two local authorities would be met which was about Rs 67 lacs. The Calcutta High Court also held that State of Bihar would have the first right rather the pre-emptive right to purchase but their offer being too low, it was not accepted. Ultimately, on behalf of State of Bihar, application was filed that the lands may be sold on behalf of the State. It is stated that that application was collusive. Be that as it may, the learned Company Judge, Calcutta High 4 Court then authorised the official liquidator to sell the lands of the Company which were clearly demarcated. It is thereafter that under the authority of the official liquidator, the lands have been sold, the registration whereof has been blocked by the Collector, Bhojpur. In my view, the Collector has no such jurisdiction. If State has any problem then they had to seek clarification from the Calcutta High Court because the sale is being made under the authority of the learned Company Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The official liquidator is not acting individually but upon the authority and orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction which is the Calcutta High Court. Regrettably, State of Bihar, instead of choosing to approach the Calcutta High Court, has chosen this unique method of blocking registration of documents. Learned State Counsel submits that no sale can be affected even under the authority of the official liquidator of the Calcutta High Court in respect of property to which the Company in liquidation was not entitled to. Let me assume he is correct. The law is that if the Company had no title to the said land, it could not give any title to any other person even if it be by a sale of registered document. The Registrar cannot adjudicate questions of right, title and interest in respect of any document sought to be registered. That issue had been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others – Versus- State of Bihar and Others since reported in 1988 PLJR 671 (AIR 1989 Patna 144). At this stage, learned counsel for the State submits that they have now decided to move the Calcutta High Court for clarification and/or necessary modification in their previous orders and till 5 such time at least this Court should not pass any positive order. Having considered the matter, in my view, though this Court is of the opinion that the Collector, Bhojpur had no authority to issue such a direction and the registration of the documents have to be allowed but keeping the interest of the State, whatever it may turn out to be, giving them a fair chance to establish their rights, I would let the order of the Collector, Bhojpur operate for another 45 days from today. But if the State Government fails to get any order from the Calcutta High Court staying the registration of those documents in the meantime, then on expiry of 45 days from today, the Registrar, Ara or the Sub Registrar, as the case may be, shall register the document in accordance with law and the order of the Collector, Bhojpur would cease to operate. Thus, these two writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)