The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 (An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Bairagi Charan Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Biswambar Mohanty, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. (for O.Ps 1 & 2) Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate. (for O.P.3) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :26.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :03.04.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to delete the entry of the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) from the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 made against the entry of the Registered Sale Deed bearing No.10391101963 dated W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 1 of 8 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1), as the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is illegal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, in order to transfer his some properties, the O.P. No.3 executed and registered a sale deed No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner. After registration of the said sale deed, the petitioner applied for mutation of the properties covered under that deed by filing Mutation Case No.1859 of 2011 and the said mutation case was allowed in his favour and after mutation, a separate R.o.R. was issued in respect of the said purchased properties in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner came to know that, on dated 26.02.2011, the O.P. No.3 has cancelled the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) by executing and registering a deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 (Annexure-4) unilaterally. He (petitioner) also came to know that, the O.P. No.2 has made entry in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate of his office against the properties covered under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) about the cancellation of such deed through the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4). W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 For which, without getting any way, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directing the O.P. No.2 to delete the recordings/entries of the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 from the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the office of O.P. No.2, which was made/entered in that register against the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1), as the unilateral deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is illegal. 3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Legal Reasoning
learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No.3. 4. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is, “whether the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) executed by the vendor of the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 i.e. O.P. No.3 unilaterally without the consent of the vendee thereof i.e. petitioner is legal and whether the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) has power, jurisdiction or authority under law to enter such cancellation deed in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in its office against the entries made relating to the properties covered under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1).” W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 3 of 8 5. The power, jurisdiction and authority of the Sub-Registrar like the O.P. No.2 on this aspect has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Government of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan reported in AIR 1961 SC 787, there is no express provision in the Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document, which has already been registered. (ii) In a case between Veena Singh (dead) Through LR Vrs. The District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462, a document, once it is registered, can be cancelled or set aside only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The registration authorities are rendered infructuous and would have no power to cancel registration, even on the ground of fraud or other irregularities. The role of the Sub-Registrar stood discharged, once the document had been registered, since there is no express provision in the Registration Act, which empowers him to recall the registration. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered. (iii) In a case between Laxmidhar Naik and Ors. Vrs. Sridhar Naik and Ors. reported in 107 (2009) CLT 356, a right awarded by a registered document cannot be taken away by a deed cancellation. (iv) In a case between G. Jeyaraj Vrs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Ors. reported in 2025 (1) Civil Court Cases 451 (Madras) (Para 5), Registering Authority has W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 no power to cancel the document already registered, because power conferred on Registrar by virtue of Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not with respect to cancellation of a registered document. (v) In a case between M. Sreeram Reddy Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 416 (Telangana) (Para 10) & R. Ganapathi Vrs. Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2020 (4) Civil Court Cases 279 (Madras) (Para 5), once a registered deed is executed in favour of a party, original owner is divested of title to property. Executant cannot take a U turn and subsequently cancel the same unilaterally. (vi) In a case between P. Sivakamisundari and another Vrs. The Subordinate Registrar No.II, Sub-Registrar Office, Periyakulam and Ors. reported in 2010 (1) CCC 405 (Madras) & Sri. Umakanta Jena & Ors. Vrs. Sri Raghunath Rout and Ors reported in 111 (2011) CLT 252, Registering Authority is well within its right to accept the document for registration, if both parties are agreed for cancellation of document and executed cancellation deed. (vii) In a case between Dulana Dei alias Dolena Dei Vrs. Balaram Sahu and two others reported in AIR 1993 (Orissa) 59, deed of cancellation having no force in eye of law. (Para 8) (viii) In a case between Subeda Nayak (since dead, represented by his L.Rs.) Vrs. Government of Orissa represented through the Inspector General of Registrations, Cum-Excise Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in 105 (2008) CLT 109, once a sale deed was executed transferring of the right, title and interest from the property by the executant, he no more remains capable of dealing with such property after transfer is made. If a document for cancellation of the sale deed is executed, the same cannot have any force over the sale deed already executed. Therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 5 of 8 the District Sub-Registrar to make an endorsement regarding cancellation of the sale deed or on its copy maintained in his office about cancellation of sale deed. (Paras 6 & 7) (ix) In case between Amulya Krushna Rana Vrs. Registrar, Jaipur and two others reported in 2017 (I) OLR 683, District Sub-Registrar should not have made an endorsement on the original sale deed or on its copy, which is maintained in his office. Therefore, the District Sub-Registrar is directed to delete the endorsement from the records of the sale deed maintained in his office. 6. Here in this writ petition at hand, when it is the undisputed factual aspects of the case of the parties that, the vendor of the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) i.e. O.P. No.3 has executed the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) unilaterally without the consent of the vendee thereof i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition and when the District Sub- Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) has made entry to the said deed of cancellation in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 against the properties covered under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1), then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, cancellation of registration through deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) unilaterally by the vendor (O.P. No.3) is illegal and the entries of such cancellation made by W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 the O.P. No.2 in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 against the properties covered under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) is illegal. 7.
Decision
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. Cancellation of registration of the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) unilaterally by its vendor i.e. O.P. No.3 through the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is held as illegal. The District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) is directed through issuance of writ of mandamus to delete the entry of the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) from the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 made against the entry of the properties covered under the registered sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) immediately on the very same day of the communication of this judgment to the O.P. No.2. W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 7 of 8 9. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment immediately to the O.P. No.2 for immediate compliance of the directions made in this judgment by the O.P. No.2. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 03.04.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Apr-2025 15:32:47 W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022 Page 8 of 8