Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to direct property registration involving disputed titles and notified forest land claims.

The Petitioner, a proposed purchaser of land in Gaya, challenged Order No. 109 dated 22.07.2023, passed by the Collector-cum-District Registrar, which refused to permit the registration of a sale deed for land situated in Khata No. 76, Plot No. 14.

The Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest claimed title via a 1938-39 settlement from an ex-landlord.

However, the Forest Department claimed the land was notified as "protected forest" in 1948 and 1952-53.

Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 (307 of 2005) regarding the land’s ownership and nature remains pending.

Despite an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff in that suit, the Registering Authority refused registration based on a Forest Department objection.

A previous writ (CWJC No. 6933 of 2021) directed the Petitioner’s predecessor to seek permission from the Trial Court if he intended to sell the land.

The Collector’s impugned order maintained the registration restriction until the disposal of the Title Suit.

1. Whether the Collector/Registering Authority has the jurisdiction to refuse the registration of a sale deed on the grounds of a pending title suit and claims by the Forest Department.

2. Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of a property where the title and nature of the land are seriously disputed.

The Court considered the scope of Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, regarding the reasons for refusal to register documents.

It further referenced Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, concerning the notification of protected forests, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

The principles regarding the protection of forest land established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India were also noted.

The Court maintained the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not an appropriate forum for adjudicating complex and disputed questions of title.

The Court observed that the subject land is embroiled in multiple litigations, including Title Suit No. 29 of 2005 and three other suits, indicating that the title is neither clear nor settled.

The State contended that the Petitioner’s claim relied on forged and manufactured documents intended to usurp notified forest land.

The Court found that the dispute involved "complex questions of title vis-a-vis questions of law pertaining to protected forest".

It noted that a previous Bench had already granted the Petitioner's predecessor liberty to approach the Civil Court for permission to alienate the property, a remedy which was bypassed in favor of the present writ.

The Court reasoned that directing registration under such circumstances would "further complicate the situation" and that the Petitioner’s reliance on Kumar Gaurav v. The State of Bihar was misplaced given the specific facts of this dispute.

The Court declined to interfere with the Collector’s order during the pendency of the civil suit.

Consequently, the writ application was dismissed as being devoid of merit.