The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2842 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Rajani Kanta Palo -versus- The State of Odisha, represented through the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others …. …. Petitioner Opposite Parties Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.K. Behea-1, Advocate Smt. J. Sahoo, Learned Additional Standing Counsel None appears for Opposite Party No.7 CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order of refusal of registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner passed on dated 05.12.2024(Annexure-5 series) by the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II, Ganjam (Opposite Party No.4) on the basis of the Letter No.11928 dated 14.10.2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi, Ganjam indicating that, the deed for sale submitted by the petitioner before the Opposite Party No.4 for registration is a forged one and notice has been issued by him(Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi) to the petitioner for his appearance before him(Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi), but, he(petitioner) has not submitted any written statement as yet. 2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 3. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the parties basing upon the impugned order vide Annexure-5 series passed by the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II, Ganjam(Opposite Party No.4), the crux of this writ petition is that, whether, the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II(Opposite Party No.4) has power, jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner on the basis of the Letter No.11928 dated 14.10.2024 of the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi(Opposite Party No.5) stating that, the deed presented by the petitioner for registration is a forged one is sustainable under law ? 4. The law on this aspect has already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions :- Page 2 of 5 In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others (i) vrs. State of Bihar and others : reported in 1989(2) Civil Court Cases- 172(Patna)—If the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title in the property for sale, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. In a case between Balachandran vrs. Sub-Registrar and others (ii) and Premakumaran and others vrs. Sub-Registrar and others: reported in 2023(3) Civil Court Cases-609(Kerala)—Persons executing document can only transfer right that, they have—Merely because, they are purporting to transfer possessory rights and they are not been able to produce any prior documents cannot be a ground for Sub-register to refuse registration.(Para-4) In a case between Kailash and others vrs. Sub-registrar of (iii) Assurance, Indore : reported in AIR 1985 (M.P.)-12(Para-15) that— When, a document is presented, it is for the Sub-registrar to discharge its duties law, which necessarily excludes extraneous considerations, as such, instructions or directions having no foundation in law and no public authority while so acting would introduce its own fanciful notions in the matter. in accordance with In a case between Tejpal and another vrs. State of Haryana (iv) and others : reported in 2015(Sup.1) Civil Court Cases-471(P&H)— Sub-registrar cannot refuse to register a document on the ground of title, because, such dispute is exclusive domain of civil court and dispute of title can never be used before a Sub-registrar by any party. In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another vrs. The Deputy (v) Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another : reported in 2012(3) Civil Court Cases-736(P&H)— that, want of ownership and title of vendor—Jurisdiction of Registering Authority—It does not fall in the domain of registering authority to embark into the question of ownership when document is presented for registration—Impugned order set aside—Sub- Registrar directed to register sale deed. In a case between Daitari Jena vrs. State of Orissa : reported in (vi) 2025(I) OLR-887 that, Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908 does not authorize the registering officer to enquire consequential legal effect as well as merit of the deed of question presented for registration and to refuse to its registration expressing opinion on its merit.(Para-7) In a case between Smt. Sulochanama vrs. H. Nanjundaswamy (vii) and others : reported in 2001(1) Civil Court Cases-568(Karnataka)— Refusal to register the deed for sale by the Sub-registrar on the basis of report of the Tahasildar, to whom the matter was referred, as the Tahasildar reported that, land revenue documents were false. In spite of such report of the Tahasildar stating that, land revenue documents concerning deed for sale were false, still then, the Sub-register is not Page 3 of 5 entitled to refuse registration on the basis of such report of the Tahasildar, when the deed presented for registration was complete in its all respects for registration.(Para-5) 5. In view of the propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the above decisions, the Sub-registrars like the Opposite Party No.4 had no power, jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner on the basis of Letter No.11928 dated 14.10.2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi(Opposite Party No.5) to the Opposite Party No.4 for non-registration of the same. 6. For which, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 series passed by the Opposite Party No.4 cannot be sustainable under law. 7. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed by the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II (Opposite Party No.4) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 8.
Decision
As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 9. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 05.12.2024(Annexure-5 series) passed by the Sub-registrar(Opposite Party No.4) for refusal of the registration of deed for sale of the petitioner is quashed. Page 4 of 5 11. The Opposite Party No.4 (Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II) is directed to register the deed for sale, if presented by the petitioner again annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to act upon the same for its registration as per Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa Registration Rule, 1988. If the same is registered, then, after its registration to return the registered sale deed to the petitioner within three days of its registration after complying its all formalities as per Section 100 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 as well as Notification No.2915 dated 12.08.2017 of the IGR, Odisha. 12. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 07:26:49 Page 5 of 5