[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Sandeep Pattnaik & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 23 July, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Sandeep Pattnaik & Others
… Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERADate of Hearing : 03.07.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 23.07.2025
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 1 of 9
J UDGMENTANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.–
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
praying for quashing the Annexures-41 and 44 passed by the
Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) and Inspector General
of Registration, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) respectively.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioner Nos.1,2
& 3 executed a deed for sale vide Annexure-24/B in favour of
their vendee-petitioner No.4 indicating therein that, they are
the owners of the land covered under the deed for sale vide
Annexure-24/B as the successors (LRs) of the recorded tenant
of the land for sale, but, the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party
No.4) refused to register that deed for sale as per its order vide
Annexure-41 assigning the reasons that,
“the flow of title from settlement R.o.R to the
executants of the deed for sale appears to be correct,
but, the said deed for sale presented for registration not
found free from all encumbrances and is confused in
title due to multiple transactions have been made over
the properties, for which, he (Opp. Party No.4) is not
satisfied with the document of title covered under the
deed for sale presented before him (Opp. Party No.4).
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 2 of 9
Because, the sellers of the document presented for
registration have not satisfied their ownership over the
property as per the mandate in pursuance of Section 22-
A (2) of the Registration (Odisha Amendment) Act, 2013
which have been communicated by Government of
Odisha, Revenue & Disaster Management Deptt. vide
their notification No.12028 dated 25.04.2014 to prohibit
fraudulent transaction of immoveable property read with
Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, So, the
document is not found fit for registration and is liable to
be refused and hereby refused under Section 71 of the
Registration Act, 1908. However, the presentant is at
liberty to appeal before the District Registrar, Khordha
under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908.”
3. Thereafter, the petitioner No.4 preferred an Appeal under
Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 before the
District Registrar challenging the above refusal order under
Section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 vide Annexure-
41 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4), but,
that appeal was dismissed.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner No.4 filed a Revision before the
Inspector General of Registration vide ORTPS Revision Case
No.1 of 2021 challenging the orders passed by the Sub-
Registrar, Jatni and District Registrar-cum-A.D.M. but, that
ORTPS Revision Case No.1 of 2021 was dismissed on dated
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 3 of 9
30.04.2022 (Annexure-44) “giving liberty to the appellant to
present the document/deed for sale again before the Sub-
Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) fulfilling all the legal
provisions and directed Sub-Registrar, Jatni to do the needful in
pursuance to the statutory provisions as enshrined in the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 within the ORTPS timeline”.
5. On being aggrieved with the above all the orders passed
by the Sub-Registrar, Jatni, District Registrar-cum-A.D.M.,
Khordha and Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack, the
petitioners (the vendors and vendee of the deed for sale) filed
this writ petition praying for quashing the orders as indicated
above and to direct the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4)
to register the deed for sale (Annexure-24/B), which was
presented by the petitioners for registration stating that, the
orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4),
District Registrar-A.D.M, Khordha (Opp. Party No.3) and the
Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2)
for non-registration of their deed for sale vide Annexure/B) are
not in conformity with law. For which, the said orders are
liable to be quashed and direction is required to be given to
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 4 of 9
the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) to register their
deed for sale vide Annexure-24/B.
6. Now the question arises, whether the order vide
Annexure-41 for refusal to register the deed for sale
(annexure-24/B) presented by the petitioners for
registration as per Section 71 of the Registration Act,
1908 and the confirmation of that order of the Sub-
Registrar by the appellate authority (A.D.M-cum-District
Registrar, Khurda) and Revisional Authority (I.G.R.,
Odisha) are in conformity with the law?
7. The scope, power, limitation and jurisdiction of a Sub-
Registrar like the Opp. Party No.4 in this matter at hand for
the refusal to register the deed for sale like Annexure-24/B in
this matter at hand on the ground of confusion in flow of title
in respect of the land for sale covered under that deed has
already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:
(I) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association
and others Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported
in 1989 (2) Civ.C.C. 17 Patna (Para No.3) that, if
a document otherwise complying with the statutory
requirements and formalities is presented for
registration, 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 not have any title or
has an imperfect title to the property, the
transferee on transfer will either get no title or heWP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 5 of 9
will get an imperfect title. This will be to the
prejudice of the transferee and is not of any
concern to the registering authority.
(II) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vs.
Regional Development Commissioner for Iron
and Steel and Others reported in AIR 1991 (Cal.)
62 (Para No.8) that, unless the relevant laws
governing the matter for refusal to register a sale
deed clearly to that effect, such an authority cannot
go into question of the merits of the transaction to
which the documents relate.
(III) In a case between Tejpal & Another Vs. State of
Haryana & Others reported in 2015 Supp.
Civ.C.C. 471 (P&H) that, Registrar cannot refuse a
document on the ground of title. Such dispute is in
the exclusive domain of the Civil Court. The dispute
on title can never be used before a Registrar by any
party.
(IV) In a case between Sarbajanik Jan Kalyan
Parmarthik Nyas Vs. State of M.P. and Others
reported in (2008) 2 Civ.C.C. 703 (M.P) (Para
No.7) that, 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 gets the right, title and interest of
the transferee, if its vendor succeeds in the
litigation.
(V) In a case between Ranjeet Singh & Another Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar,
Ambala & 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 question of
ownership when document is presented for
registration–Impugned order set aside–Sub-
Registrar directed to register sale deed.
(VI) In a case between Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Others reported in 2024 SCC
Online (Jhar.) 2127 (Para No.8) that, Registering
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 6 of 9
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.
(VII) In a case between K. Gopi Vs. The Sub-Registrar
& Others reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 320 (SC)
(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.
5. After going through the interpretations of the provisions
of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 in the ratio of the above
decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, the
propositions of law has already been clarified that, the Sub-
Registrars like the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) has
no power/authority/jurisdiction under the Registration Act,
1980 or the Rules thereof for the refusal to register the sale
deed stating about the confusion in title of the vendors of the
deed for sale indirectly deciding the title of the land covered
under the deed for sale like the Civil Court. For which, it is
held that, the orders passed by the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp.
Party No.4), District Registrar-A.D.M, Khordha (Opp. Party
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 7 of 9
No.3) and the Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack (Opp.
Party No.2) refusing to register the deed for sale (Annexure-
24/B) on the ground of confusion in title of the vendor’s of
that deed for sale is beyond the scope/ambit of Section 22-A
of the Registration Act, 1908. Their said orders cannot be
sustainable under law.
6. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the
petitioners. The same must succeed.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed.
8. The impugned orders vide Annexures-41 and 44 passed
by the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) and Inspector
General of Registration, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) including
the order passed by the A.D.M-cum-District Registrar, Khurda
(appellate authority) are quashed.
9. The Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) is directed to
register the deed for sale i.e. Annexure-24/B, if presented by
the petitioners for registration with the certified copy of this
Judgment and shall act upon the same as per the Registration
Act, 1908 and Rules thereof and after completion of the
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 8 of 9
Registration, the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opp. Party No.4) shall
return the sale deed as per Rule 100 of the Registration Rules,
1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of the
Government of Odisha to the petitioners within 3 days of its
registration after complying all the lawful formalities of the
same.
10. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 23 .07. 2025// Utkalika Nayak
Jr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
Date: 24-Jul-2025 12:05:08
WP(C) No.16394 of 2022 Page 9 of 9
[ad_2]
Source link