Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs: (a) For issuance of direction upon the respondents for quashing the notice of R.M.P. case No. 29/2009-10 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 and the entire proceeding of R.M.P. Case No. 29/2009-10 pending in the court of Registrar cum Deputy Commissioner of the District of Godda.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- a. During the last settlement (ganger's settlement) done in the year 1934, the land besides other being Plot No. 173 was recorded in the name of Zamindar Kamat Babu Dwarika Prasad Dhandhaniya and others and put in their khas possession over plot No. 173, tauzi number 463, jamabandi number 52 mouza Mauhara in the district of Godda It is the specific case of the petitioner that the boundaries with lands and building over plot no. 173 did not vest in the State of Jharkhand under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. He submits that the land was recorded in the name of ex-intermediary, as he was in khas possession and was assigned a settlement Jamabandi No. 52 in the parcha prepared in 1934. It is submitted that as per the Ganger's settlement, the Zamindar had the right to possess and transfer such land by sale and they have right to make raiyati settlement of such land after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. All such kamat and bakast which was found on possession of the Zamindar on the date of vesting have been settled with Zamindar as per Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is submitted that as per the provision of the Section 2(t) read with Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act such land which on the date of vesting were in khas possession became a transferable (basauri) land. b. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a portion of the aforesaid land was transferred by way of registered deed no 28 dated 11.02.2010 in favour of the petitioner making transfer of area of 6 Bighas of Jamabandi No. 52 of Mahuara Mouza. c. The petitioner was served with notice of R.M.P. Case No. 29/2009-10 on 07.03.2010 under the signature of respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Court of respondent no. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner cum Registrar of District of Godda on an application and complaint filed by the Circle Officer purporting to be under Section 68(2) of the Indian Registration Act, wherein an objection was filed in connection with registered deed no 28 dated 11.02.2010 claiming it to be government land which stood vested in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act,1950. The notice has been annexed in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. d. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner cum Registrar has no jurisdiction in the purported exercise of power under Section 68(2) of the Indian Registration Act to decide the title and possession of the vendor of the petitioner and to decide the right, title and possession of any of the party including the State. e. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the property has been transferred by way of registered document, and if any person is aggrieved by the registration of the sale deed , the only remedy which is available is to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration of the title and cancellation of the sale deed. f. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that in paragraph no. 17 of the writ petition that the Circle Officer/State of Jharkhand has no jurisdiction to decide unilaterally the right, title of the state without initiating any proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. g. Upon query by the court ,counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision for cancellation of transfer of land is provided under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 and the only remedy is to file a civil suit or initiation of proceeding under Section 4 (h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. h. It is submitted that the impugned action which has been taken by the respondent no. 2 is wholly without jurisdiction. Accordingly the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. i. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767.
(3.) Mr. Sahil, J.C. to learned S.C. (L&C) submits that the sale deed in connection with the property in question could not have been registered and accordingly the registration has been wrongly done. Therefore the authority under whose jurisdiction registration has been done is competent to issue notice for the purpose of cancellation of registration. He submits that the records of the case suggests that this property is a government land and it has been wrongly registered in favour of the petitioner.;