Orissa High Court
Sanjay Majhi vs State Of Odisha And Another on 10 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14466 OF 2023
Sanjay Majhi .... Petitioner(s)
Mr.P.K.Nayak,Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr.U.K.Sahoo,ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order No. 10.05.2023
01. 1. On oral submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner is
permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer portion of the
Writ Petition.
2. On consent of Parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Undisputedly the status of the land involved herein appears to
have been allowed the conversion 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.17 of 2021. The Appeal undertaking an
Appeal exercise, the Competent Authority even in spite of the
decision of this Court in similar case may be on the premises of
pendency of the Writ Appeal declined to allow the Appeal and
thereby rejecting the Appeal involved herein.
// 2 //
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 in disputing on the point of law as the issue involved 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 and unless such conversion order has been challenged in
appropriate forum, 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 reasoning in rejection of the Misc. (Registration) Appeal
Case No. 17 of 2021 is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court
interferes with the order at Annexure-4 and sets aside the same.
8. In the event the instrument seeking registration involving the
land involved herein lying the Registering Authority, the concerned
Sub-Registrar is directed to pass the registration involving such
instrument. This Court also clarifies 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
// 3 //
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 hereinabove.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
U.Nayak
Digitally signed by UTKALIKA
UTKALIKA NAYAK NAYAK
Date: 2023.05.11 13:02:20 +05'30'
