Case Background
The matter arose out of a dispute over a residential plot in a co‑operative housing society at Khajpura, Patna. The petitioner claimed to be a member of Sri Ram Nagari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., a housing society.
He asserted that he was allotted Society Plot No.48 in Block No.B (2), forming part of Survey Plot No.216, Khata No.228, Tauzi No.5588 in Mauza‑Khajpura. According to him, his allotment was followed by execution of a sale deed in his favour, referred to in the judgment as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
On the basis of this sale deed, the petitioner claimed to have come into possession of the land. He further stated that his name was mutated in the revenue records by the Anchal Adhikari, Sadar Patna, in Mutation Case No.31/5/02‑03. The mutation order was produced as Annexure 4.
About twelve years after he says he took possession, the petitioner discovered that respondent no.2 was also claiming the same plot. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.2 was not a member of the society and had no genuine claim over the land.
He accused respondent no.2 of playing fraud and deceit in collusion with the then Secretary of the society, one Bharat Tripathy. According to the petitioner, by using this collusion, respondent no.2 managed to get a separate sale deed executed for the same plot, and on that basis claimed right, title and possession.
To protect his claim, the petitioner filed Dispute Case No.125 of 2002 before the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. He sought a declaration and confirmation of his right, title and possession over the plot described above.
The dispute was transferred to the Joint Registrar (Marketing), Co‑operative Societies, Bihar, Patna for decision. By order dated 25.03.2006/25.04.2006 in Case No.125 of 2002, the Joint Registrar rejected the petitioner’s claim as against respondent no.2, while leaving it open for him to pursue his claim against the co‑operative society itself.
The petitioner then preferred Appeal No.17 of 2007 before the Additional Registrar, Co‑operative Societies. On 12.10.2012, the Additional Registrar dismissed the appeal, holding that it was barred by limitation and also raising a question about the very maintainability of such a dispute before the Registrar.
Aggrieved by both the Joint Registrar’s and Additional Registrar’s orders, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14479 of 2015.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, heard senior counsel for the petitioner and for the private respondent no.2, besides the State.
The petitioner’s senior counsel attacked the impugned orders on two main grounds. First, he argued that the Additional Registrar wrongly treated the appeal as time‑barred. He submitted that Section 48 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act does not prescribe any limitation period for filing such an appeal. Therefore, according to him, the appeal could not have been rejected merely on limitation.
Second, he questioned the validity of the sale deed in favour of respondent no.2, referred to as Annexure 6. He argued that this sale deed had been executed not by the society’s ex‑Secretary directly, but by the ex‑Secretary’s alleged attorney holder. According to the petitioner, this attorney holder did not have a registered power of attorney, as required under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. He contended that without such a registered power of attorney, the attorney holder could not validly execute a sale deed, making respondent no.2’s sale deed invalid and not binding on the petitioner.
To support these submissions, the petitioner relied on:
(i) the Supreme Court decision in Bihar State Co‑operative Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Uma Shankar Sharan and another, reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 42 (SC), particularly paragraph 8; and
(ii) the Patna High Court decision in Raja Ram Gupta and Anr. vs. Ramchandra Prasad and Ors., reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 172, paragraph 5. He cited these to argue that a sale deed executed without a proper registered power of attorney is not legally binding.
On the other side, senior counsel for respondent no.2 pointed to the pleadings and annexures in the counter affidavit. He highlighted that the petitioner had not disclosed where his own sale deed was registered.
He further submitted that in the body of the petitioner’s sale deed there was no mention of any “Schedule‑II” plot. According to him, only at the foot of the last page, by hand, an additional schedule had been inserted, describing some other piece of land merely to confer jurisdiction on a particular registry office. He contended that this land was not actually the subject‑matter of the sale deed.
Respondent no.2’s counsel also referred to Annexure F to the counter affidavit, which contained the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Patna in Miscellaneous Case No.12 of 2002‑03. In that case, the mutation in favour of the petitioner, previously granted by the Anchal Adhikari, had been challenged and, after hearing the parties, was cancelled.
He pointed out that in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner there was no statement that this DCLR order (Annexure F) had been challenged anywhere. This suggested that the cancellation of mutation against the petitioner had attained finality at the revenue level.
Respondent no.2’s counsel further argued that there existed a serious dispute of right, title and possession over the same plot between the petitioner and respondent no.2. In such a situation, he submitted, an application under Section 48 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act was not maintainable because the Registrar is not authorised to declare or decide civil title and possession like a civil court.
To support this, he relied on several Patna High Court decisions:
(i) Sita Ram Sah vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 (1) PLJR 396 (paragraph 8), holding that the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies is not a “Court” and hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before him;
(ii) Sri Lakhan Yadav and Ors. vs. Most. Rajkala Devi and Ors., 1997 (1) PLJR 361 (paragraph 18), where it was held that a sale deed registered at Kolkata cannot be treated as invalid or fraudulent in registration law unless it is proved from pleadings and evidence that a small fictitious area was inserted solely to confer jurisdiction on a Sub‑Registrar, and the parties never intended to deal with that area; and
(iii) Smt. Swati Pande and Ors. vs. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Bihar, Patna and Ors., 2007 (2) PLJR 525 (paragraphs 11 and 17), which held that once property is transferred by a registered document, a vested civil right is created in favour of the transferee, and only a civil court of competent jurisdiction can nullify such rights. The Registrar has no authority to decide right and title.
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the High Court summarised what the Joint Registrar had already found in his 25.03.2006/25.04.2006 order. The Joint Registrar had noted that the sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 was executed in 1985, whereas the petitioner’s sale deed was executed later, in 1988. He had also found that the power of attorney holder, Sri Bindesh Kumar Singh, not only executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 but also appeared as a witness in the petitioner’s sale deed.
The Joint Registrar further noted that the mutation order in the petitioner’s favour had been cancelled by the DCLR. Taking all this into account, he dismissed the dispute case filed by the petitioner, while allowing him the liberty to pursue his claim against the co‑operative society itself.
The High Court then assessed the nature of the dispute. It observed that both parties claim that their respective sale deeds are legal and valid. Both derive their asserted title from these documents, and both strongly contest actual possession over the land. The petitioner claims to have raised construction on the plot; respondent no.2 claims that he came into possession even before the petitioner’s sale deed and also constructed on the land.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the matter clearly involves a “serious dispute of right, title and possession” over immovable property. Referring to the judgment in Smt. Swati Pande, the Court agreed that issues of such nature cannot be properly adjudicated by the Registrar exercising powers under Section 48 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act.
The Court noted that the Joint Registrar had, on the basis of the earlier sale deed and related documents in favour of respondent no.2, rejected the petitioner’s claim against respondent no.2, but had simultaneously kept open the petitioner’s right to claim relief against the society. The Additional Registrar had then dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in treating the appeal as time‑barred, especially in view of the finding that the Registrar is not a court and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings. It therefore refused to interfere with either of the orders passed by the Joint Registrar and the Additional Registrar.
On this reasoning, the Court held that the writ petition had no merit and dismissed it.
At the close of the hearing, the petitioner’s senior counsel requested that the Court grant liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law. The Court clarified that it was not necessary to grant such liberty in specific terms, since any party is always free to seek remedies available under law. It only observed that dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioner pursuing such remedies elsewhere.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for members of co‑operative housing societies and for anyone involved in land disputes arising out of co‑operative allotments.
First, it clarifies that when two parties both claim ownership and possession over the same land on the basis of rival sale deeds, that kind of serious title dispute cannot be decided by co‑operative authorities under Section 48 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act.
Registrars and Joint Registrars under the Act are not civil courts. They can decide certain disputes related to co‑operative business, but they cannot finally declare who is the true owner or who has better title where complex rival claims exist.
Second, the case shows that revenue mutation is not final proof of title. Here, the petitioner’s mutation order was later cancelled by the DCLR, which weakened his position before the co‑operative authorities and the High Court.
Third, the judgment underlines the importance of limitation and proper legal forum. Even though the petitioner believed there was no limitation under Section 48, the authorities and the Court treated the appeal as time‑barred and emphasised that limitation laws and earlier case law still matter.
For ordinary buyers in co‑operative housing schemes, the message is that one should verify earlier sale deeds, check the status of mutation proceedings, and be prepared to go to a competent civil court if serious title disputes arise. Co‑operative bodies and their registrars cannot always give final answers on ownership.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can serious disputes of right, title and possession over co‑operative society land between two rival purchasers be decided by the Registrar under Section 48 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that such disputes involving competing sale deeds and contested possession must be decided by a competent civil court, not by the Registrar under Section 48. -
Issue: Was there any ground for the High Court to interfere with the orders of the Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar dismissing the petitioner’s dispute and appeal?
Answer: No. The Court found no illegality or infirmity in the orders. The Joint Registrar had rightly declined to grant relief against respondent no.2 and left open the petitioner’s claim against the society, and the Additional Registrar correctly treated the appeal as barred by limitation. -
Issue: Does dismissal of the writ petition prevent the petitioner from pursuing other remedies?
Answer: No. The Court clarified that the petitioner remains free to seek remedies in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, and dismissal of the writ petition does not bar him from doing so.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Bihar State Co‑operative Marketing Union Ltd. vs. Uma Shankar Sharan and another, 1992 (2) PLJR 42 (SC) – cited by the petitioner.
- Raja Ram Gupta and Anr vs. Ramchandra Prasad and Ors., 2004 (2) PLJR 172 – cited by the petitioner.
- Sita Ram Sah vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1995 (1) PLJR 396 – cited by respondent no.2.
- Sri Lakhan Yadav and Ors vs. Most. Rajkala Devi and Ors., 1997 (1) PLJR 361 – cited by respondent no.2.
- Smt. Swati Pande and Ors. vs. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Bihar, Patna and Ors., 2007 (2) PLJR 525 – relied upon by the Court to hold that Registrar cannot decide right, title and possession.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14479 of 2015
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Date of Judgment: 25.04.2019
Citation: 2019 (3) PLJR 281
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Dipak Kumar, Advocate.
- For the State (respondent no.1): Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GA 13.
- For respondent no.2: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Senior Advocate; Mr. Pravin Prabhakar, Advocate.
Nature of the case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by co‑operative authorities (Joint Registrar and Additional Registrar) under the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act in a land dispute.
Link to judgment: MTUjMTQ0NzkjMjAxNSMxI04=-bp3Uh–am1–LB5cE=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
