M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.)THE petitioner has challenged the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner -cum -District Registrar, Deoghar vide Memo No. 10, dated 14.1.2004 whereby he has imposed a mandatory condition of production verification report of the Circle Officer in a prescribed format before the Registrar for registration of deeds in the district of Deoghar.
(2.)PETITIONER 'scase is that suddenly he needed money for medical treatment and for other exigencies and having no other source for getting money, offered to sell one katha of land of Jamabandi No. 50/60 out of plot Nos. 635 and 636 of P.S. Jasidish, district, Deoghar or his own relative, Smt. Mamta Devi for a consideration of Rs. 66,000.00 . Accordingly a sale deed was drafted and presented after affixing proper stamps before the District Sub -Registrar, Jasidih for registration the District Sub -Registrar asked the petitioner to bring the inquiry report of the Circle Officer and present it along with the sale deed as directed by the Deputy Commissioner by his impugned letter dated 14.1.2004, Petitioner 'sfurther case is that although not necessary, he submitted the required format before the Circle Officer on 31.1.2004 and repeatedly approached the Circle Officer to send the report but the report was not submitted by the Circle Officer.
Mr. N.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned office order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction on. Learned counsel submitted that the District Registrar has no jurisdiction to impose any condition contrary to the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel submitted that there is no provision of putting a condition or making any inquiry except the inquiry as envisaged under Sec. 34 of the Registration Act. In this circumstance learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Parsad V/s. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2003) 4 JLJR 616 : 2004 (1) JCR 104 (Jhr).

(3.)MR . Jhunjhunwala, learned Government Pleader No. III, on the other hand, on the basis of the stand taken in the counter -affidavit, submitted that under Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 (shortly SPT Act), there is a bar of transfer of right in a holding by a raiyat and such transfer shall be invalid unless right to transfer is recorded in the records of right. It is contended that there are certain parts of the Municipal Area, Deoghar and Madhupur where no records of right have been prepared. For the registration of the lands of such areas the Sub - Divisional Officer has to be consulted as to whether the land is transferable or not. Learned counsel submitted that even under the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules, 1995 the Registering Officer is empowered to make such enquiries as he deems fit for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the document.