Jharkhand HC quashes departmental proceedings against 4 Sub-Registrars, says registrars cannot verify land title
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, July 10: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed departmental proceedings initiated against four registration officers—Santosh Kumar, Sujit Kumar,…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, July 10: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed departmental proceedings initiated against four registration officers—Santosh Kumar, Sujit Kumar, Mihir Kumar and Sweta Kumari—holding that a Registering Officer has no statutory duty to verify the title of property or the correctness of survey records while registering documents.
Justice Deepak Roshan allowed a batch of four writ petitions, ruling that the allegations against the officers did not constitute misconduct under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court also held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from unexplained and inordinate delay, causing serious prejudice to the petitioners.
Complaint over land registration led to departmental action
The petitions arose from a complaint lodged in August 2020 alleging irregularities in the registration and mutation of land in Dhanbad. Following an inquiry, the Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department issued show-cause notices and later charge memos against the officers.
The allegations against Santosh Kumar, former District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad; Sujit Kumar, former Sub-Registrar, Govindpur, Dhanbad; Mihir Kumar, former District Sub-Registrar, Govindpur, Dhanbad; and Sweta Kumari, former District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, were that they had registered sale deeds despite mismatches between old and new survey khata and plot numbers and had failed to verify supporting land records.
The State subsequently initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016.
High Court: Registrar cannot adjudicate title
Examining the scope of Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908, the High Court held that the provision only requires a document to contain a description sufficient to identify the property. It does not cast any obligation on a Registering Officer to verify ownership, title, or the correctness of survey khata and plot numbers.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar (2026) 2 SCC 696, which held that a Registering Officer has no adjudicatory power to determine title and cannot refuse registration if statutory requirements are fulfilled.
The Court further observed that responsibility for maintaining and certifying the correctness of survey records rests with Revenue Officers under Rule 58 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959, and not with the Registering Authority.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings
The High Court noted that although the complaint was received in August 2020 and replies were submitted the same year, charge memos were issued only in 2023 and 2025, while departmental proceedings were initiated in 2025.
Terming the delay unexplained and prejudicial, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Amresh Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 693), which held that unexplained inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings may justify judicial interference.
No misconduct established
Justice Roshan observed that there was no allegation of bribery, corruption, mala fide conduct, collusion, undue favour or personal gain against any of the petitioners. The allegations merely questioned the discharge of statutory duties that were not legally required of the registering officers and, therefore, did not constitute misconduct.
The Court quashed the notifications initiating departmental proceedings and the charge memos issued against all four officers in W.P.(S) Nos. 3306, 3404, 3423 and 3924 of 2025. Consequently, all the writ petitions were allowed and the disciplinary proceedings were set aside.
