IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8874 of 2010 1. DR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BRAJ MOHAN PRASAD SINGH R/O 'SONA-PHOOL' SUMBHA COMPLEX, WEST BORING CANAL ROAD, P.S.- SRIKRISHNAPURI, IN THE TOWN AND DISTT.- PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 60, RYECROFT ROAD, LONDON, U.K., REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI SHEO RAJ PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE GANESH PRASAD SINGH, R/O RAJENDRA NAGAR ROAD NO.1, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, REGISTRY OFFICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, REGISTRATION OFFICE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. RAM GOPAL DAS CHELA OF MAHANTH LATE BHAGWAN DAS R/O MUHALLA- SHEIKHPURA, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA 6. THE BIHAR REGLIGIOUS TRUST BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 06. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.2.1010 passed by the District Sub-Registrar, refusing to register the Title Deed for the lands purchased by him from respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a bona fide purchase for value of the land in question from respondent no.5. The registration authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the question of title and can only interfere with registration, subject to the conditions laid down in the Registration Act. He strongly relied upon a Division Bench order of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1989 page 144 (Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others. Versus State of Bihar and Others) holding at paragraphs 3 and 5 as follows:- 2 “3. It appears to us that this application can be disposed of at the stage 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.” Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that there is a serious controversy with regard to ownership of the lands claimed by the Mahant vis-à- vis Bihar State Board of Religious Trust. An order passed by a statutory authority not by application of his own mind but on direction and dictates of another apparent on basis of recitals contained in the order is per se illegal as it amounts to abdication of statutory powers. Presently, the Court does not consider it necessary to go into the issues 3 sought to be urged from the Division Bench judgment. The objection on behalf of respondent no.6 to the remedy of an appeal is best answered on the ground that, if the order is without jurisdiction, or suffers from patent arbitrariness, existence of alternative remedy is no bar to the exercise of discretion by the Writ Court. In A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 16 (Commissioner of Police, Bombay Versus Gordhandas Bhanji) the Court has held at paragraph 10 as follows:- “17. It is clear to us from a perusal of these rules that the only person vested with authority to grant or refuse a license for the erection of a building to be used for purposes of public amusement is the Commissioner of Police. It is also clear that under R. 250 he has been vested with the absolute discretion at any time to cancel or suspend any license which has been granted under the rules. But the power to do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person or authority can do it.” The order dated 16.2.2010 by the statutory authority in no uncertain terms states that registration was refused on basis of instructions issued to it. The order dated 16.2.2010 is set aside. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)