Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.23547 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Debasmita Pahi .......…… Petitioner -VERSUS- Inspector General of Registration Odisha, Cuttack & Others …….. Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr.Debakanta Mohanty, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C. P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 :: 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 refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3) for registration of the deed for sale (which was presented by the Petitioner on dated 11.07.2025 for registration). 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner is the lawful owner and in possession over the properties covered under the deed for sale (which was presented by her before the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3) on dated 11.07.2025 for registration), but, as per refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3), the O.P. No.3 refused to register the said deed for sale of the Petitioner assigning the reasons that, “the properties covered under the said deed for sale are the free hold land of the Petitioner as per the order No.4121/CA dated 21.04.2009 issued by the Director of Estate and Ex-Officio Secretary to Government, GA Department reflecting the conversion of the same from lease hold to free hold having sthitiban status of the Petitioner therein, but, when the Page 2 of 9 final R.o.R. of the said land has not been published by the Settlement Authorities as yet under Section 12 of the OS & S Act, 1958 due to non-finalization of the settlement operation, though the draft R.o.R of the same has already been published in her name, then, he (O.P. No.3) shall not register that deed for sale of the Petitioner, unless the Petitioner produce the finally published R.o.R. of the said land by the Settlement Authorities showing that, he Petitioner (vendor of the deed for sale) has right, title and interest over the said properties”. 3. On being aggrieved with the said refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3), she (Petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing that Annexure-9 on the ground that, the impugned order vide Annexure-9 passed by the O.P. No.3 is bad and illegal under law. 4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 5. As per the provisions of T.P. Act, 1882, every land owner like the Petitioner has inherent right to transfer/alienate his/her properties as per his/her sweet will to meet his/her necessities. Page 3 of 9 6. As per law, the continuation of the settlement operation and non- publication of the final R.o.R in the settlement operation shall not be a bar for the land owners to alienate/transfer their properties. The non-publication of the final R.o.R. in the settlement operation shall not be a bar for the registering officer like the O.P. No.3 to register the deed for sale like the deed for sale of the Petitioner, as she (Petitioner) is the owner of the land for sale. 7. On this aspect, the clarification has been given by the Dy.IGR (CR)-Cum-Under Secretary (Regn.) as per letter No.280 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-8) issuing the same to the O.P. No.3 answering to its letter No.21 dated 03.01.2024 that, “there is no explicit provision under the the registering Registration Act, debarring officer not to allow registration, if the settlement operation is in force”. 8. On this Aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (2) Civ.C.C. 172 (Patna) in Para No.3 that, Page 4 of 9 If a document presented for registration otherwise complying with the statutory requirements and formalities, the registering authority is bound to register it. It is not for the registering authority to enquire and ascertain the title to its own satisfaction. Under the provisions of the T.P. Act, 1888, if the transferor does no have any title or has an in the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice f the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority.. imperfect title (ii) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner-cum- Registrar, Ambala and another reported in 2012 (3) Civ.C.C. (P & H) 736 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 question of ownership when document is presented for registration—Impugned or set aside—Sub-Registrar directed to register sale deed.. (iii) In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2025 (I) OLR 887 in Para No.7 that, Section 34(3) of the Registration Act do not authorizes the registering officer to enquire into the consequential legal effect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for registration and to refuse its registration expressing opinion on its merit. (iv) In a case between P.Papu Vrs. Sub- Registrar reported in 2025 (II) C.L.J (Madras) 205 that, Page 5 of 9 Even if, a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 to enable the Sub-registrar to refuse registration except Section 22-A of the said Act. (v) In a case between K.Gopi Vrs. The Sub- Registrar and others reported in 2025 (II) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 320 at Para No.9 that, refusal to register a document by the Sub- Registrar merely on the ground of failure to produce documents of title of vendor is not sustainable under law, because, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register invoking Section 22 of the Registration Act considering the title of the vendor. 9. When, the impugned refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3) itself speaks that, the Petitioner is the owner of the land covered under the deed for sale (which was presented before him on dated 11.07.2025 for registration) and when as per law, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar like the O.P. No.3 to ascertain, whether the vendor of the deed has title to the property, to which, he/she is seeking to transfer and when as per law, 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 the same is Page 6 of 9 not in the concern of the Registering Authority, but, the Registering Authority is bound to register the deed and when the Registering Officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into the consequential legal effect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for registration and when, the Registering Officer has no jurisdiction to refuse the registration of a deed expressing opinion on the merits of title in that deed and when the matter concerning the title in the deed in question comes under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but, not the Sub- Registrar like O.P. No.3, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio off the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, it is held that, the impugned refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the O.P. No.3 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for quashing the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner and to direct the O.P. No.3 to register the deed for sale (which was presented by the Petitioner on dated 11.07.2025) on the very Page 7 of 9 same day of its production by the Petitioner as per the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules thereof. 10. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same must succeed. 11. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed. 12. The impugned refusal order No.2402 dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3) is quashed. 13. The Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.3) is directed to register the deed for sale original of Annexure-5, if, presented by the Petitioner for its registration annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to act upon the same for its registration as per the Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. After its registration, the O.P. No.3 shall return that registered sale deed to the Petitioner within three days complying all the rules and formalities of Section 100 of the Page 8 of 9 Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 issued by IGR of Odisha. 14. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is
Decision
disposed of finally. (A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack 17th Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo// Junior Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Sep-2025 16:48:43 Page 9 of 9