HIRALAL AGRAWAL, ETC. versus RAMPADARATH SINGH & ORS., ETC.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 15-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HIRALAL AGRAWAL, ETC. 
v. 
RAMPADARATll SI:'l/GH & ORS., ETC. 
July 15, 1968 
[J. M. SHELAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Bihar Land Re/ornts (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of 
Surplus Land) Act (12 of 1962), >. 16, Bihar Land Re1onns (Flxatio11 
of Ceiling Area and Acquisition vi Surplus Land) Rule>. 1963, r. 19, 
and Indian Registration Act (16 of B08), s. 47-Tramfer of propuiy . 
• vhen r.01nplete-'E11ter1aining app/1c<111on' 1neaning of-R. 19, 
wh~iher 
1nandtitory or directory. 
The owni:r of a certain land cxccutrd a sale deed on 9th October, 1964 
conveying the land 10 the first rc<;;pondcnt cind the sale deed v.·a.s ten· 
dcrcd for rcgi .. tralion. 
On 14th ~ovember, 1964, the appellant obtained 
from the rcgist~ring authority a certified copy of the sale deed, tendered. 
On 26th 'Novcn1ber, he filed an application under s. 16(3) of thi.! Biha: 
JJand Rcforn1s (Fixation of Ceiling Arca nod Acquisition of Surplus 
Land) Act. 1962, in the office of the Collector. claiming to he entitled, 
;1s a co--sha'rcr, to a right of reconveyanc·~ of the land. 
He annexed to 
his application the certified copv of the sale deed, '3 copy of the challan 
cviden.cing his having deposited the sale price and the additional sun1 
of 10% thereof in compliance \Vith the proviso to s. 16(3)(i) and r. 19 
of the Rihar Land Rcf0rms (Fixation of (~ciling- Arca and Acquisition of 
Surplus Land) Rules, 1963. On 30rh >iovcmber. the sale deed was re· 
gic;tcrcd. 
On the same day, the Collector, on being satisfied that 
the 
applicat:on \\·as proper. ordered possession to be given to the appellant 
under s. I6(3)(ii). pending di<posal of the application. 
Thereafter, 
the \A1Pcctor passed his order hol\.linl! that the aoncil1nt v.·as 
th~ CO· 
<iharer of the \"endor, that he \\'JS ent"1llcd to the righl of rcconvcyance. 
and directed the tran'\fcree (the first respondent) to roconvcv the land 
in appellant's favour. The Commissioner upheld the order, but the Board 
of Revenue set it aside. 
The appellant's \VTit petition for quashing the 
Board,'s order was di-;misscd by the High Court. 
Jn appeal to this C,,ourt, on the question : Whether the Collector had 
no jurisdiction lo entertain the application, tiecausc. (I) ref?_i-;lration of 
the s..11-e deed \Vas not complered on the date of filing tho a.pplicatioo and 
therefore, the transfer not having taken place on that date, the apptica· 
tion was premature; and (2) the application \\.'as not maintainable as it 
\Vets accompanied only hy a certified copv of lhe sale deed tendered f0r 
registration and not hy a copy of the registered sale deed ao; required by 
r. 19. 
HF! .D : ( l) The ri~ht of rcconvcyance had not accnred to t.he ap-
pellant on 26th Noventher, 1964, !he date of presentation of his applica-
tion. becau~e. the sale \\'<ts completed only \vhen rc¢s1ration of the sale 
deed \va-; completed as contemplated hv s. 61 of thc Registration Act. 
that is. on 30th '.'/ovcmher. 
Merely because under s. 47 of the Registra-
tion Act t.he transferee's title related hack to 9th OOober. 1964, the dare 
of execution of the sale deed, it could not he s'3id that the transfer itself 
must he deemed to have hecn completed on 9th October. [336 C-EJ 
Rant Saran I.al V •
• Wst. 
/)()ntin;kuPr. rt962J 
S.C.R. 474. 
Rad/ta~ 
kisha11 L. Toshniwal v. Slrrid!rar, [19611 1 S.C.R. 248 and Bishan Sb11:h 
v. Khazan Hingh, [1959) S.C.R. 878. followed. 
A 
B 
·-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
.. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HIRALAL V. RAMPADARATH 
329 
But a mere presentation of the application in the sense of the appel-
lant having handed it over to some subordinate in the collector's office 
could not mean that it was entertdined by the Colleotor on that date. 
It could not therefore be contended l:y the respondent that the Collector 
had entertained the application either on the 26th when. it was taken 
by the appellant to the collector's offioz or on the 28th when some subor-
dinate in the office made an endorsement on it that it should be placed 
before the Collector. The Collector took cognizance of it only on 30th 
November when it was placed before him. 
Since registration of the sale 
deed and therefore the transfer had both become 
complete 
on 
that 
date, the Collector had jurisdiction to entertain the application on that 
date and pass appropriate orders. [337 B-E] 
(2) Rule 19 provides that tho application under s. 16(3) should be 
made in a particular form, that the applicant has to deposit the purchase 
mone

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.