The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23934 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Kamal Lochan Sethi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. P. K. Rath, Sr. Advocate. assisted by Mr. S. Rath, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing : 09.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :17.10.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Registering Authority i.e. the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) through issuance of a writ of mandamus to receive the gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) executed by the petitioner for registration, because the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) orally refused to receive the said gift deeds and sale Page 1 of 10 deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) for registration expressing that, the properties covered under the said gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) in each for transfer of the properties to the donees and vendee thereof are more than 500 sq. meters, for which, the registration of the said gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) are not permissible according to the Rule 14 of The Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 without prior approval of the Competent Authority thereof. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) and to register the same, because, Rule 14 of The Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 cannot create any impediment under law for the registration of the said deeds, as the provisions of Rule 14 of the Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 are not applicable to the deeds of the petitioner i.e. the originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4 in order to prevent the same from registration. 2.
Legal Reasoning
I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3). Page 2 of 10 3. So far as the oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is concerned; On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:- In a case between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) that, “the Sub- Registrar/Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document from any party, when the same is presented for registration, but after receiving the same, he/she will consider, whether the said document is legally fit for registration or not. Because, Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that, the Sub-Registrar shall receive the document, which is presented before him/her for registration and if the said document is fit for registration, he/she shall register that deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof. If the said document is not compliance with the provisions of law, he/she shall pass an order of refusal of registration in writing as indicated in Section 71 of the Registration Act.” So in view of the clarifications made in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is not inconformity with law. Page 3 of 10 For which, the said conduct of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) i.e. refusal to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is held as illegal. 4. So far as the grounds assigned by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) i.e. applicability of Rule-14 of Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 to the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) for non- registration of the said deeds, as the petitioner is transferring more than 500 sq. meters of land through each of the said deeds in favour of the respective donees and vendee thereof is concerned; The main purpose/intention/object of The Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Rules, 2020 and 2025 is, “to improve the ease of doing business and boost industrial investment and facilitate affordable housing. The key reasons for the amendments of the Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Rules, 2020 in the year 2025 is for simplifying building plan approval processes, increasing Floor Area Ratio (FAR), reducing regulatory constraints and exempting certain requirements.” industrial and commercial building As per Rule 2 (cxv) of the Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Rules, 2020, the real estate project means:- “the development of a building or a building consisting of apartments, or converting an existing building or a part thereof Page 4 of 10 into apartments, or the development of land into plots or apartment, as the case may be, for the purpose of selling all or some of the said apartments or plots or building, as the case may be, and includes the common areas, the development works, all improvements and structures thereon, and all easement, rights and appurtenances belonging thereto;” 5. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides inherent right to every land owner like the petitioner for alienation/transfer of his/her property. The said inherent right of alienation of the property of a land owner like the petitioner cannot be prohibited/restrained/refused on the anticipation of the use of the transferred properties covered under the deeds to a real estate project in future. As per law, right of alienation of property of a land owner can never be restrained/stalled on the basis of surmises/conjectures/inferences anticipating the use of the alienated properties to a real estate project in future. It is very fundamental in law that, any decision of a Court or Authority cannot be based on conjectures, surmises or guess works. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:- In a case between State of Uttarakhand and another Vrs. Ravi Kumar (deceased) through legal representatives and others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 281 that, any decision cannot be based on conjectures and surmises or on the basis of mere guesswork. (Para 67) Page 5 of 10 6. As the alienation of the property of a land owner is his/her inherent right, for which, every land owner like the petitioner has his right either to transfer full plot or part thereof according to his/her necessity as per his/her will/wish. Because, The T.P. Act, 1882 as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides absolute right to every land owner to use his/her land including his/her right to transfer/sell according to his/her sweet will without affecting the rights of others and without forbidding the statutory prohibitions of transfer. The Sub-Registrar or any Officer of the State cannot curtail the inherent right of alienation of the property of a land owner through any Notification of the Government. Therefore, the statutory powers provided by the statute i.e. the Registration Act, 1908 to the Sub-Registrar cannot be seized by any letter/circular/instruction issued by the Government or Officers to the Sub-Registrar. 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) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988 SCC Online (Patna) 142 that, the higher official of Sub- Registrar has no power to direct the Sub-Registrar not to register a document presented for registration, because the Sub-Registrar itself is Page 6 of 10 statutorily empowered as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof either to register a document or refuse to register the same. But, his statutory powers cannot be restricted through any circular or instruction issued by its Superior Officer contrary to the statutory law i.e. the Indian Registration Act, 1908. (Para 5) (ii) In a case between Sulochanamma Vrs. H.Nanjundaswamy and others reported in 2001(I) Civ.C.C. 568 (Karnataka) at Para No.5 that, Sub-Registrar is not entitled to refuse registration on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar, because, statutory power through Registration Act is with the Sub-Registrar for registration or non-registration of a deed, but, the direction or instruction of any authority curtailing statutory power for non-registration cannot be permissible under law. (iii) In a case between Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Vrs. M/s. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries reported in 2009 (1) CLR (SC) 174 that, Circular, which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law. (iv) In a case between Gopinath Sahu & Others Vrs. State of Orissa & Others reported in 2020 (2) OLR 559 that, statutory provision of law or the rules cannot be overridden by the executive instructions. In case of conflict, the statutory provision shall prevail over the order/instruction. (v) In a case between Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and Others Vrs. Union of India (UOI) and Others reported in 2003 (1) OLR SC 619 that, an order which has been passed by an officer without any authority would be non-est. (vi) In a case between State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vrs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in 117 (2014) CLT (SC) 945 that, the executive instructions are not having statutory character Page 7 of 10 and therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of Article 300A. (Para 15) 7. Recently it has been notified by the Government of Odisha as per its Resolution vide RDM-Reg-MEET-0004-2024 38270 / R & DM, Dated 13th Oct 2025 indicating standard operating procedure (SOP) for registration of part plots including the SOP for registration of part plots of agricultural land in Clause-D of Para No.4 of SOP; wherein registration of documents involving subdivision of agricultural plots have been permitted. 8. When The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides inherent right to every land owner like the petitioner to sell his full plot or part plot according to his necessity as per his sweet will without affecting the rights of others and without contravening/forbidding the statutory prohibitions and when there is no material or document before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to show that, the petitioner was transferring the properties covered under the documents (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) for a real estate project and when the properties covered under the deeds for transfer are agricultural lands and when as per Resolution No.38270 dated 13th Oct, 2025, the Government of Odisha has made clarification permitting the land owners of all agricultural land to transfer the parts of their plots, then at this juncture, the District Sub- Page 8 of 10 Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) should not have refused to receive the documents (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 9. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) in receiving the originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4 of the petitioner for registration as well as his oral expressions for non-registration on the basis of surmises/conjectures/inferences anticipating the possibility of using the transferred properties through the originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4 as real estate project in future without the existence of real estate project in the said properties at present are not sustainable under law. For which, there is no justification under law to disallow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Decision
10. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed. 11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest. The District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) is directed through issuance of a writ of mandamus to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner, if the same are presented before the O.P. No.3 annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to act upon Page 9 of 10 the same for registration immediately as per Registration Act, 1908 and Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. If the said deeds are registered, then, after registration of the same, the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) shall return that registered deeds to the petitioner within 3 days of its registration after complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha. 12. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 17.10.2025//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: 17-Oct-2025 17:36:09 Page 10 of 10