Case: Hiralal Agrawal, Etc Vs. Rampadarath Singh &amp; Others

2. By a deed of sale dated October 9, 1984, one Prembati Devi sold 2.62 acres of land to respondent 1 for Rupees 2,000. The said deed was thereafter presented to the Sub-Registrar for registration. On October 14, 1964, the appellant applied for a certified copy of the said sale deed and on its being furnished to him he filed an application dated November 26, 1964 under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, XII of 1962 before the Collector. He annexed to his application the said copy of the sale deed and a copy of the challan evidencing his having deposited the sale price of Rs. 2,000 and an additional sum of 10 per cent thereof as required by the proviso to Section 16 (3) (i) and Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963. On November 30, 1964, the Registrar completed registration by endorsing his certificate on the said sale deed under Section 60 (1) and copying out the endorsement and the certificate in the relevant register under Section 61 (1) ofthe Registration Act, 1908. The appellant had in his said application claimed to be entitled as a co-sharer to the right of re-conveyance of the said land under Section 16 (3) of the Act. On November 30, 1964, the Collector, on being satisfied that the application was proper, ordered possession to be given to the appellant under Section 16 (3) (ii) pending its disposal3. It is not in dispute that registration was completed on November 30, 1964, i. e., four days after the appellant had handed over his application and that though the certified copy furnished by him was not that of the registered deed, it was a correct copy of the sale deed presented for registration. On October 16, 1964, the Collector passed his order holding that the appellant was the cosharer of the vendor and was entitled to the right of reconveyance. He, therefore, directed the transferee, respondent 1, to reconvey the said land in appellants favour. No objection was taken before the Collector that the said application was not maintainable as registration was not completed when the appellant filed it or on the ground that only a certified copy of the sale deed and not of the registered deed had been annexed to it. This contention was raised for the first time in appeal before the Commissioner who rejected it holding that in view of the admitted fact that registration was completed on November 30, 1964 the said proceedings before the Collector and his said order were not invalidated. The Commissioner consequently upheld the said order. In appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Board held that when the appellant presented his application on November 26, 1964, the transfer as contemplated by Section 16 was not completed and, therefore, its presentation by the appellant was not valid inasmuch as it was not in accordance with Rule 19 (2) of the said Rules. The reason given by the Board was that the rule required a copy of the registered deed and not a mere copy of the sale deed. On this ground the Board set aside the Collectors order and dismissed the appellants application4. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of certiorari for quashing the Boards said order. The High Court, relying on its previous decision in Rajkishore Singh v. Bhubneshwari Singh, 1968 BLJR 33, held that Section 16 (3) was a piece of beneficent legislation intended to prevent fragmentation of holdings and to facilitate consolidation with a view to utilisation of land in the most advantageous manner, and that to attain these objects when a transfer of land was made, a co-sharer of the transferor or a raiyat of the adjacent land was given the right to have the land reconveyed to him by the transferee through the Collector. The High Court, however, held that the said right depended on two conditions, viz., (a) the transferee was entitled to the full purchase price and an additional 10 per cent thereof as solatium and (b) the applicant made an application in the prescribed manner. The prescribed manner means the manner laid down by Rule 19 under which an application is to be made in Form L. C. 13 which requires the applicant to annex to his application a challan evidencing the deposit of the requisite amount in the relevant treasury, a copy of the registered sale deed and a statement to that effect in the application. The High Court observed that Section 16 (3) (ii) confers on the Collector the extra-ordinary power, without having to hold a preliminary enquiry, to dispossess the transferee and deliver to the applicant possession of the land in question pending the disposal of the application. It further observed that the exercise of this power was dependent on the condition that deposit has been made and that there has been a completed transfer, that is, a transfer evidenced by a copy of the registered deed of sale. Section 16 (2) (iii) provides that a transfer can only be made by a registered sale deed. The object of this clause and Rule 19 is that the Collector who is required to direct possession from the transferee to the applicant can satisfy himself that the land is transferred and that the deposit made is full and this he can do only if the application is accompanied by a copy of the registered deed. The High Court agreed that Section 16 was unlike the law of pre-emption under the Mahomadan law in that it gets rid of the procedural matters thereunder and provides not the right of substitution of the applicant in place of the transferee but a right of reconveyance of land in question. But it held that the right of reconveyance arises only on the transfer of the land to the transferee, that such transfer is completed only when the deed is registered and that though by reason of Section 47 of that Act the transfer takes effect from the date of execution once registration is completed, the transfer was not complete on November 28, 1964 when the Collector accepted the said application. Therefore, the right of reconveyance had not accrued to the appellant on that day, the transfer not having been yet completed and the Collector consequently had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The High Court further held that the provisions of Rule 19 were mandatory and agreed with the Board that the appellant not having annexed a copy of the registered deed, his application was not only premature but was also not maintainable. These conclusions are challenged in these appeals.

Reasoning: 8. From the contents of Rr. 18 and 19 and Forms L.C. 12 and 13, it is clear that the object of these rules, firstly, is to enable the registering authority to see that the transferee does not by the transfer acquire land in excess of the ceiling area and, secondly, to enable the Collector to know that a transfer of the land has been made and that such transfer is completed by registration, the price paid for it and that the deposit made by the applicant is of a sum equivalent to the purchase price and 10 per cent thereof. It is manifest that the purpose for requiring the applicant to file a copy of the challan and of the registered deed is to enable the Collector to ascertain therefrom the aforesaid facts and to proceed further on being satisfied about themIt is true that the Board of Revenue has stated at one place that the Collector "admitted" the application on November 28, 1964 and at another place that he "took cognizance of it on that date. If by the words "admitted" and took cognizance of" the Board meant that the Collector took cognizance of the application in its technical sense, the Board would appear to be factually incorrect. The record of the case shows that some one in the Collectors office received the application on November 28, 1964 and made an endorsement thereon that it should be put up before the Collector on November 30, 1964. As already stated, on the said application having been placed before him on November 30, 1964, the Collector passed his interim order under S. 16 (3) (ii) directing the transferee to deliver possession of the land in question to the appellant. Admittedly, registration was also completed on that dateA mere presentation of the application in the sense of the appellant having handed it over to some subordinate in the Collectors office cannot mean its having been entertained by the Collector on that date.There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that the Collector had entertained the application either on the 26th when it was taken by the appellant to the Collectors office or on the 28th when some subordinate in the office made an endorsement on it that it should be placed before the Collector.The endorsement on the contrary shows that the Collector had not even seen it on that day, much less accepted it. The Collector took cognizance of it on November 30, 1964 only when it was placed before him and when on being satisfied that the conditions of S. 16 were satisfied he passed his order under sub-s. (3) (ii) for handing over possession from the transferee to the appellant. On these facts, Mr. Nambiars first contention must failour view, whereas the deposit in the relevant treasury, the applicant being either a co-sharer or a raiyat of the adjoining land, his readiness and willingness to have the land in question reconveyed to him on the same terms and conditions as in the sale deed and the transfer of the land to the transferee are conditions precedent to his acquiring the right of reconveyance and to the Collectors jurisdiction to try such an application, the prescription as to annexing a copy of the registered deed is only directory and is laid down to furnish necessary information to the Collector to enable him to proceed with it. Annexing a certified copy of the sale deed where a copy of the registered deed is not yet available on account of the process of registration not having been completed would, in our view, be sufficient compliance of the directory prescription so long as it furnishes information necessary for the Collector to proceed with the application.The fact that a copy of the registered deed was not furnished along with the application was, therefore, not fatal to the application nor did such omission deprive the Collector of his jurisdiction to entertain it nor did it vitiate the proceedings before him or the order thereon made y him. The Board of Revenue and the High Court were not right in dismissing the appellants application.