Orissa High Court
Raghunath Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 26 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12347 of 2023
Raghunath Nayak .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. U.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
26.04.2023
Order No.
01. 1. On oral prayer made by the learned counsel for Petitioner, this
Court permits the learned counsel for Petitioner to make necessary
corrections in the first part of the prayer portion in the Writ Petition by
making his challenge to the order at Annexure-4 in Court today, since
the Petitioner is affected by the order at Annexure-4.
2. On consent of Parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Undisputedly the conversion involving status of the land
involved herein appears to have been allowed in allowing the
proceeding under Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act. Accordingly there
has been consequential preparation of Record of Rights. It is after the
conversion is allowed, the applicant having attempted to sale the land,
there has been attempt for registration of the instrument involved
therein. Registration having been turndown by the Registering
Authority, an Appeal has been preferred involving Misc. (Registration)
Appeal No.16 of 2022. In undertaking an Appeal exercise, the
Competent Authority even in spite of the decision of this Court in
// 2 //
similar case, may be on the premises of pendency of the Writ Appeal
declined to allow the Appeal and thereby rejected the Appeal involved
herein.
4. Taking this Court to the decision in W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2016
vide Annexure-5, inference has been drawn by learned counsel for the
Petitioner to satisfy the Court that once there is already a decision of
this Court involving similar issue particularly when such decision is
even affirmed in dismissal of the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.1678
of 2022, there is no other option with the Competent Authority than to
be abided by the judgment of this Court. It is, in the above premises,
the Appeal order is assailed and sought to be quashed.
5. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel, however,
finds no scope to dispute the point of law as the issue involved is
already decided in W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2016 and there is also
affirmation of the same judgment in the dismissal of W.A. No.1678 of
2022, for there is production of copy of Division Bench order also in
the process of hearing.
6. In the circumstance, this Court finds, the Single Judge
judgment observing, once there is already conversion by the competent
court of law, unless such conversion order has been challenged in
appropriate forum and order therein is set aside by competent court of
law, the authorities under the Registration Act are bound by the same.
7. In the circumstance and for the ratio decided in W.P.(C)
No.18171 of 2016 has a direct application to the case at hand, this
Court finds, reasons in rejection of the Misc. (Registration) Appeal
Case No.16 of 2022 are not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court,
accordingly, interfering with the order at Annexure-4, sets aside the
same.
// 3 //
8. In the event the instrument seeking registration involving the
land involved herein is lying with the Registering Authority, the
concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to pass the registration involving
such instrument. This Court also clarifies that in the event the
instrument is returned to the applicant seeking registration, it may be
open to the applicant to surrender the instrument for registration of the
same by the Competent Authority within one week along with certified
copy of this order for his undertaking the registration exercise. Work
involving the registration be concluded at least within a period of one
week from the date of communication of this order either by learned
State Counsel or by the Petitioner along with copy of instrument, if it is
in the custody of the Petitioner herein.
9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above
observation and direction.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
Ayaskanta Jena
