The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Jajati Keshari Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate. For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak, Addl. Standing Counsel. for O.Ps.1 to 3 Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate. for O.Ps.4 & 5 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :12.03.2025 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 quashing (setting aside) the orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the District Sub- Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.2) respectively. W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 1 of 17 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he (petitioner) is the owner of the properties vide Plot Nos.543/1734 and 544/1735 under Khata No.574/84 in mouza Mallikashpur, Unit No.16 under Town Police Station in the District of Balasore. In order to meet the necessities of the petitioner i.e. for construction of a new building as well as for repayment of hand loans, he (petitioner) gave proposal for sale of his above two plots to one Anadi Charan Pati of village Armala under Remuna Police Station in the District of Balasore for a consideration of Rs.1,25,38,024/- (rupees one crore twenty five lakh thirty eight thousand twenty four), to which, he (Anadi Charan Pati) agreed. Then as per the understandings between the petitioner and his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, the date of execution and registration of the deed of sale between them in respect of the above two plots of the petitioner was fixed to 07.07.2023. Accordingly, on dated 07.07.2023, the petitioner purchased e- stamp papers for Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six thousand nine hundred twenty) for execution of the sale deed on the same. Then, the details of the sale transactions relating to sale of the aforesaid two plots of the petitioner in favour of his vendee Anadi Charan Pati were typed through computer system on the aforesaid purchased stamp papers of the petitioner according to the versions of the petitioner in presence of his vendee Anadi Charan Pati and witnesses. After completion of typing and W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 2 of 17 knowing about the contents of the sale deed and admitting the same to be as correct, the petitioner, his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, witnesses, deed writer and advocate signed on the same. Annexure-1 Series is the copy of the said executed sale deed with receipt of e-stamp papers. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the said executed sale deed before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) for registration of the same on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 and accordingly, as per the direction of the opposite party No.3, the said deed was processed in the office of the opposite party No.3 for registration. During the course of processing, as per the requirements under law, the petitioner paid Rs.5,03,050/- (rupess five lakh three thousand fifty) in total towards registration fees, user charges along with other required fees as per Annexure-2 and the said deed was generated through e-registration system with ID No.62306699 and as such, all the legal formalities and requirements for registration of the sale deed was completed and that sale deed was fully ready for registration after being checked and processed in its all respect on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 by the opposite party No.3 and its staffs in his office. On that day i.e. on 07.07.2023, when the said executed sale deed was kept on the table of opposite party No.3 for registration and when the petitioner, his vendee, identifier, witnesses, deed writer and advocate of the petitioner were present in front of the table of the opposite party No.3 W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 3 of 17 and when the said sale deed was about to be registered by the opposite party No.3, surprisingly, the opposite party No.3 did not register the same and withhold the same from registering expressing about the complain of a third party, namely, Santilata Das for non-registration of the same on the basis of prior agreement to sell with her by the vendor. For which, the petitioner, his vendee, identifier and witnesses, deed writer and advocate were compelled to return back from the office of opposite party No.3. Then, he (petitioner) brought the said matter to the notice of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.2) and Inspector General, Registration, Odisha (opposite party No.1), but, they did not pay any heed to the same. Thereafter, on the basis of an order passed on dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023, the opposite party No.3 refused the registration of the said sale deed, which was presented by the petitioner on 07.07.2023 for registration assigning the reasons that, “when the said sale deed (which was presented by the petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 for registration) was under process of checking by his official staffs prior to its registration, during that time, one Santilata Das submitted her grievance stating that, the vendor of that deed had made an agreement to sell with her in respect of the properties covered in the sale deed and he has received Rs.17,00,000/- as advance money from her, but now he denied to register the sale deed in her favour. Therefore, the said Santilata Das prayed for postponement or keep pending the registration of the sale deed, as she has already given Rs.17,00,000/- as an advance and the registering authority is competent W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 4 of 17 to keep pending the document as per Rule 146 of the Odisha Registration Rules, 1988 without registering the same. On verification of the document, it is found that, the recorded tenant has submitted document for registration before him in order to sell the properties to the other party without the knowledge of the objector Santilata Das. When, I came to know the above facts, the document was kept pending for examination of veracity of the allegations of the objector Santilata Das. Today, the objector Santilata Das submitted a status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Balasore in I.A. No.92-118 of 2023 arising out of C.S. No.107/135 of 2023 on dated 10.07.2023, in which, Hon’ble Court has directed to maintain status quo on the land involved in the deed/document, for which, the undersigned was not in a position to register the said document on 07.07.2023. Because, the schedule land is under sub-judice. Keeping in view of the above facts, the undersigned is hereby refused the registration of the sale deed produced by the recorded
Legal Reasoning
tenant Shri Jajati Keshari Mohanty.” Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26247 of 2023 praying for a direction to the District Sub- Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) for releasing the deed after its registration. The Hon’ble Courts disposed of that writ petition vide W.P.(C) No.26247 of 2023 filed by the petitioner giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 challenging the above order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 before opposite party No.2 (District Registrar, W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 5 of 17 Balasore) challenging the above order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023. In that Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023, the opposite party No.3 submitted its version in support of his order vide Annexure-3 stating that, “the sale deed was presented for sale by the recorded tenant Shri Jajati Keshari Mohanty before him on dated 07.07.2023 for registration and the same was entered in e-registration system bearing ID No.62306699 and after maintaining due official procedures, e-ticket was generated and documents were presented before him for admission of execution. But, during this process, one Santilata Das submitted a grievance petition before him on the same day i.e. on 07.07.2023 stating that, the vendor of the sale deed i.e. Jajati Keshari Mohanty has made an agreement with her to sell two plots involved in the sale deed for registration by executing an agreement for sale before the Notary Public, Balasore on dated 29.12.2018 and she has already paid Rs.17,00,000/- (rupees seventy lakh) as advance money to him, but thereafter, in spite of her request, the vendor of the sale deed did not execute the sale deed in her favour. After taking the grievance of Santilata Das into consideration, he (opposite party No.3) kept the sale deed of Jajati Keshari Mohanty pending for approval and rest consequential formalities of completion of the registration procedure and subsequently, he (opposite party No.3) came to know that, the vendor of the deed is selling the properties without the knowledge of Santilata Das and Santilata Das had lodged a complain against the vendor of the deed before the S.D.J.M., Balasore alleging the allegation of cheating and misappropriation vide I.C.C. Case No.92 of 2021, which was sent to the I.I.C., Town P.S., Balasore for registration of F.I.R., but I.I.C. did not take any step against the vendor. He also came to know that, a suit vide C.S. No.107-135 of W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 6 of 17 2023 has been filed by the objector Santilata Das against the vendor praying for a direction to the vendor of the deed to execute and register the sale deed in her favour and the said suit vide C.S. No.107-135 of 2023 is sub-judice in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Balasore. In I.A. No.92/118 of 2023 of that suit, an order has been passed on dated 10.07.2023 with direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties involved in the deed. So, he (opposite party No.3) refused the registration of the presented sale deed by its vendor as well as recorded tenant Jajati Keshari Mohanty.” 3. After hearing, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balaosre (opposite party No.2) as per order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) dismissed the Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 filed by the petitioner only accepting the findings made by the opposite party No.3 on dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 without giving his own finding in the same. 4. On being aggrieved with the above orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.2) respectively against the petitioner refusing to register his sale deed presented before opposite party No.3 on dated 07.07.2023, he (petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting aside) the Annexure-3 & 4 and to direct the District Sub- W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 7 of 17 Registrar, Balasore to register his sale deed and to return the same on the grounds that, after completion of all the procedures and formalities of registration of the sale deed with payment of proper stamp duties, registration fees, user charges and other charges as well as required documents and photographs and after entering the said sale deed into the e-registration system bearing ID No.62306699, the Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) had no jurisdiction or authority under law to withhold the said sale deed without registering the same on a mere complain of a third party to the deed, namely, Santilata Das for non- registration of the same questioning its legal effect after registration. So, the order of refusal to register the said sale deed passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) as per Annexure-3 and the confirmation to the same by the opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-4 are bad and illegal under law. For which, the orders vide Annexure-3 & 4 passed by the opposite party Nos.3 & 2 are liable to be quashed and set aside and direction is required to be given to the opposite party No.3 for registration of the sale deed of the petitioner and to return the same after its registration. 5. After filing of this writ petition by the petitioner, on the prayer of Santilata Das and her brother Ashok Kumar Das, they (Santilata Das and Ashok Kumar Das) impleaded as opposite party Nos.4 & 5 respectively in this writ petition and they (opposite party Nos.4 & 5) submitted their W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 8 of 17 counter in the shape of an affidavit challenging the writ petition of the petitioner. As per the affidavit of the opposite Nos.4 & 5, orders regarding refusal for registration of the sale deed passed by opposite party Nos.3 & 2 are proper and legal on the basis of an order of temporary injunction passed on dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. No.92 of 2023 (CIS No.118 of 2023) arising out of C.S. No.107-135 of 2023-I filed by them (opposite party Nos.4 & 5) restraining the vendor of the deed i.e. Jajati Keshari Mohanty from alienating the I.A. schedule property in favour of others. Because, the said restraint order passed in I.A. No.92 of 2023 on dated 14.09.2023 against the vendor of the sale deed has not been interfered by the Hon’ble Courts due to withdrawal of C.R.P. No.18 of 2024 filed by the vendor of the deed
Decision
challenging the above restraint order. For which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner (vendor of the sale deed) is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State i.e. opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 & 5. 7. During the course of hearing, when the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 by the District Sub- Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.2) cannot be sustainable under law, as the same are contrary to law, to which, learned counsels for opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and opposite party Nos.4 & 5 objected contending in support of the W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 9 of 17 orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balaosre (opposite party No.2) respectively contending that, the said orders vide Annexure-3 & 4 are legal and proper. The same cannot be quashed/set aside. 8. On the basis of the petition of the petitioner supported with an affidavit, counter affidavit of the opposite party Nos.4 & 5 and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of the writ petition is, whether the opposite party No.3 (District Sub- Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore) has power, jurisdiction or authority under law to withhold the sale deed presented by the petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 for registration without registering the same on the complain/objection of a third party to that deed i.e. Santilata Das for non-registration of the same questioning the merit and legal effect/consequence of that sale deed after its registration, when all the formalities and requirements under law for registration of that sale deed were completed on payment of proper stamp duties of Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six thousand nine hundred twenty), registration fee, user charges and other fees in total Rs.5,03,050/- (rupess five lakh three thousand fifty), required documents and photographs after generation of ID No.62306699? 9. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 10 of 17 In a case between Satya Pal Anand Vrs State of Madhya Pradesh (i) and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, Registering Officer is only expected to reassure himself that, the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document, as such. The Registering Officer cannot inquire into title, as his power is not quasi judicial, but administrative in nature. Registering Officer cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. (ii) In a case between Maitri Mohanty and Ors. Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. reported in 2019 (II) OLR 705, when the Sub-Registrar withhold the registration of an instrument on the premises of untenable complaint, in such a situation, direction is to be issued to the complainant that, he may take shelter of the Civil Court to remedy out the difficulty. But, the Registering Officer is to register the instrument forthwith and return the registered instrument to the petitioner by completing the entire exercise within three days from the date of service of the certified copy of this judgment. (iii) In a case between P. Balabhaskar Reddy and Ors. Vrs. The State of Telangana and Ors. reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 684 (Telangana) (at Para Nos.8 & 9), when the Sub-Registrar collected fee and validated document, then, once the document is made valid, it is not open for the Sub-Registrar to declare the validated document as a document without having force of law. Order of refusal to register the document set aside, the Sub-Registrar directed to register and release the sale deed. (iv) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988 SCC Online Patna 142, if the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, 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. (Para 3) In a case between Dinesh Singh Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and (v) others reported in 2012 SCC Online Jharkhand 951 (at Para 13), if the deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and when there is no legal or formal defect, then the registering authority cannot refuse to register the deed, if the same is presented for registration. Because, the registering authority cannot delve into the roving enquiry of the nature of the right, title of the vendor in respect of the subject matter of the deed presented for registration. (vi) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs. Regional Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel and others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 62 (at Para 8), unless the relevant laws governing the matter provide clearly to that effect, such an authority cannot go into question of the merits of the transaction, to which, the document relate. (vii) In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2015 (Supp.) Civil Court Cases 471 (Punjab & Haryana) (at Para 1), Registrar cannot join issues on title for refusing to register the instrument. That shall be the exclusive domain of a civil court W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 11 of 17 in a proper litigation that is brought between the parties who are at lis raising the dispute regarding title. A dispute on title can never be used before a Registrar by any party. (viii) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas Vrs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 703 (Madhya Pradesh), refusal to register the sale deed on the ground that, a dispute about title is pending in the Court. Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that, the vendor/transferor has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Transferee would get the right, title and interest of his vendor/transferor, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation. (ix) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another reported in 2012 (3) Civil Court Cases 736 (Punjab and Haryana), it does not fall within the domain of the registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject matter of the deed of conveyance. In a case between Sulochanamma Vrs. H. Nanjundaswamy and (x) others reported in 2001 (1) Civil Court Cases 568 (Karnataka) (at Para 5), the registration of the deed was refused on the basis of the communication received from the Tahasildar that, the revenue documents were all bogus and false. The Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he was not authorised to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents presented before him for registration. Sub-Registrar directed to register the sale deed. (xi) In a case between Ajay Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2024 SCC Online Jharkhand 2127 (at para No.8), if the said sale deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there is no legal or formal defect, this Court is of the considered view that, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the deed, if the same is presented for registration, as the Registering Authority is debarred from examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale deed presented for registration. fulfilling all the competent authority (xii) In a case between M/s Virenda Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior and another Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in W.P. No.4705 of 2020 (MP) (at Para Nos.8 & 9), when sale deed was produced before requisite requirements and the Statute does not provide any power to the competent authority to refuse the registration of such document and refusal was for no reason, therefore, the petition is allowed directing the respondents to register the sale deed which was produced before the Sub Registrar on 25.01.2018. It is demystified that the restrained order passed by the High Court in Second Appeal came in existence only on 15.02.2018 which is apparently after the date of submission of sale deed, therefore, the said order will not come in the way of registering officer nor will it curtail his power to register the sale deed. The Registering Authority is directed to register the sale deed w.e.f. 25.01.2018 and hand over the registered sale deed to the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 12 of 17 10. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, when the sale deed presented by the petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 was fully ready in its all respect for its registration by the opposite party No.3 after completion of all formalities and requirements for registration of the same on payment of stamp papers for Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six thousand nine hundred twenty), registration fee, user charges and other fees in total Rs.5,03,050/- (rupees five lakh three thousand fifty) with production of required documents and photographs including generation of the same into e-registration system having its ID No.62306699 and when the same was about to be registered on being placed on the table of opposite party No.3 in presence of the petitioner, his vendee, identifier, witnesses, deed writer and advocate and when no order of Court was in existence on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 in respect of the properties covered in that sale deed, the opposite party No.3 should not have withheld the said sale deed from its registration expressing for non- registration of the same on the complain of the third party to the deed i.e. opposite party No.4 applying the provisions of Rule-146 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. Because, the provisions of the Rule-146 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 are not applicable to this matter at hand for the refusal of registration of the sale deed presented before opposite party No.3 on dated 07.07.2023 by the petitioner, as none of the essentials W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 13 of 17 of Sections 34 & 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 were/are fulfilled for such refusal of registration. For which, the above conduct of the opposite party No.3 i.e. his abstaining from registering the sale deed on dated 07.07.2023 on the complain of the third party (opposite party No.4) is contrary to law. Likewise, the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 refusing to register the sale deed of the petitioner (which was presented by the petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 for registration) on the ground of passing of status quo order on dated 10.07.2023 in I.A. No.92 of 2023 is not sustainable under law. Because, the opposite party No.3 had not registered the sale deed on dated 07.07.2023, when the sale deed was ready in its all respect for registration on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 and when, no order was passed in any Court till 10.07.2023 in respect of the properties covered under the sale deed in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court. As per law, the opposite party No.3 had no authority or jurisdiction to refuse the registration of the said deed on dated 07.07.2023 questioning the title of the properties covered under the sale deed and the legal effect of the properties covered under that sale deed after its registration. W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 14 of 17 That apart, when since 07.07.2023 till 10.07.2023, any Court’s order was not filed/produced by the opposite party No.4 before the opposite party No.3 and when the opposite party No.3 intentionally and deliberately had awaited for an order of Court as per the request of the opposite party No.4 in order to assign the same as a cause/basis for refusal of registration in his refusal order Anenxure-3, then at this juncture, by taking the above conduct of the opposite party No.3 into account and by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts referred to supra in a case between M/s Virenda Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior and another Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 cannot be sustainable under law. 11. When it is held that, the Order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 is not sustainable under law, then at this juncture, the order dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the opposite party No.2 only accepting the observations made by the opposite party No.3 in Annexure-3 without giving his own finding can also not be sustainable under law. 12. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 15 of 17 (Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the opposite party Nos.3 & 2 respectively are not sustainable under law, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the said orders passed by the opposite party Nos.3 & 2 under Annexure-3 & 4 respectively through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 13. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must succeed. 14. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. The orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balaosre (opposite party No.2) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 respectively are quashed/set aside. The District Sub-Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore (opposite party No.3) is directed to register the sale deed dated 07.07.2023 (which is ready for registration on completion of legal formalities thereof) kept pending before him (opposite party No.3) on the very same day of the appearance of the petitioner, his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, identifier and the witnesses of that deed with the certified copy of this judgment w.e.f. 07.07.2023 and to return the registered sale deed to the petitioner within W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 16 of 17 three days of its registration and to report about its compliance to this Court in reference to this writ petition in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation between the parties relating to this matter only concerning the registration of the sale deed. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 12.03.2025//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: 13-Mar-2025 10:38:47 W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025 Page 17 of 17