Orissa High Court
Bairagi Charan Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 3 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Bairagi Charan Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Biswambar Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
(for O.Ps 1 & 2)
Mr. A.K. Mohanty,
Advocate.
(for O.P.3)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :26.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :03.04.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
directing the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) to delete the
entry of the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated
26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) from the register meant for issuance of
Encumbrance Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 made against the
entry of the Registered Sale Deed bearing No.10391101963 dated
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
18.02.2011 (Annexure-1), as the deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is illegal.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, in order to transfer his some
properties, the O.P. No.3 executed and registered a sale deed
No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) in favour of the
petitioner.
After registration of the said sale deed, the petitioner applied for
mutation of the properties covered under that deed by filing Mutation
Case No.1859 of 2011 and the said mutation case was allowed in his
favour and after mutation, a separate R.o.R. was issued in respect of the
said purchased properties in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the
petitioner came to know that, on dated 26.02.2011, the O.P. No.3 has
cancelled the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1) by executing and registering a deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 (Annexure-4) unilaterally. He (petitioner) also came to
know that, the O.P. No.2 has made entry in the register meant for
issuance of Encumbrance Certificate of his office against the properties
covered under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1) about the cancellation of such deed through the deed of
cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4).
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
For which, without getting any way, the petitioner filed this writ
petition praying for directing the O.P. No.2 to delete the
recordings/entries of the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394
dated 26.02.2011 from the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance
Certificate in the office of O.P. No.2, which was made/entered in that
register against the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1), as the unilateral deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is illegal.
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for O.P. No.3.
4. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the
sides, the crux of this writ petition is,
"whether the deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) executed
by the vendor of the sale deed bearing No.10391101963
dated 18.02.2011 i.e. O.P. No.3 unilaterally without the
consent of the vendee thereof i.e. petitioner is legal and
whether the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2)
has power, jurisdiction or authority under law to enter
such cancellation deed in the register meant for issuance of
Encumbrance Certificate in its office against the entries
made relating to the properties covered under the sale
deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1)."
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
5. The power, jurisdiction and authority of the Sub-Registrar like the
O.P. No.2 on this aspect has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts
and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Government of Uttar Pradesh and
others Vrs. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan reported in
AIR 1961 SC 787, there is no express provision in the
Registration Act, 1908, which empowers the Registrar to recall
such registration. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General
is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and
make rules in that behalf. Even Inspector General has no power
to cancel the registration of any document, which has already
been registered.
(ii) In a case between Veena Singh (dead) Through LR Vrs.
The District Registrar/Additional Collector (F/R) and another
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 462, a document, once it is
registered, can be cancelled or set aside only by a civil court of
competent jurisdiction. The registration authorities are rendered
infructuous and would have no power to cancel registration,
even on the ground of fraud or other irregularities. The role of
the Sub-Registrar stood discharged, once the document had been
registered, since there is no express provision in the Registration
Act, which empowers him to recall the registration. The role of
the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the
document is registered.
(iii) In a case between Laxmidhar Naik and Ors. Vrs.
Sridhar Naik and Ors. reported in 107 (2009) CLT 356, a right
awarded by a registered document cannot be taken away by a
deed cancellation.
(iv) In a case between G. Jeyaraj Vrs. The Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai & Ors. reported in 2025 (1) Civil
Court Cases 451 (Madras) (Para 5), Registering Authority has
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
no power to cancel the document already registered, because
power conferred on Registrar by virtue of Section 68 of the
Registration Act, 1908 is not with respect to cancellation of a
registered document.
(v) In a case between M. Sreeram Reddy Vrs. State of
Andhra Pradesh reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 416
(Telangana) (Para 10) & R. Ganapathi Vrs. Inspector General
of Registration, Chennai and Ors. reported in 2020 (4) Civil
Court Cases 279 (Madras) (Para 5), once a registered deed is
executed in favour of a party, original owner is divested of title
to property. Executant cannot take a U turn and subsequently
cancel the same unilaterally.
(vi) In a case between P. Sivakamisundari and another Vrs.
The Subordinate Registrar No.II, Sub-Registrar Office,
Periyakulam and Ors. reported in 2010 (1) CCC 405 (Madras)
& Sri. Umakanta Jena & Ors. Vrs. Sri Raghunath Rout and
Ors reported in 111 (2011) CLT 252, Registering Authority is
well within its right to accept the document for registration, if
both parties are agreed for cancellation of document and
executed cancellation deed.
(vii) In a case between Dulana Dei alias Dolena Dei Vrs.
Balaram Sahu and two others reported in AIR 1993 (Orissa)
59, deed of cancellation having no force in eye of law. (Para 8)
(viii) In a case between Subeda Nayak (since dead, represented
by his L.Rs.) Vrs. Government of Orissa represented through
the Inspector General of Registrations, Cum-Excise
Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack and others reported in 105
(2008) CLT 109, once a sale deed was executed transferring of
the right, title and interest from the property by the executant, he
no more remains capable of dealing with such property after
transfer is made. If a document for cancellation of the sale deed
is executed, the same cannot have any force over the sale deed
already executed. Therefore, it was not within the jurisdiction of
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
the District Sub-Registrar to make an endorsement regarding
cancellation of the sale deed or on its copy maintained in his
office about cancellation of sale deed. (Paras 6 & 7)
(ix) In case between Amulya Krushna Rana Vrs. Registrar,
Jaipur and two others reported in 2017 (I) OLR 683, District
Sub-Registrar should not have made an endorsement on the
original sale deed or on its copy, which is maintained in his
office. Therefore, the District Sub-Registrar is directed to delete
the endorsement from the records of the sale deed maintained in
his office.
6. Here in this writ petition at hand, when it is the undisputed factual
aspects of the case of the parties that, the vendor of the sale deed bearing
No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) i.e. O.P. No.3 has
executed the deed of cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated
26.02.2011
(Annexure-4) unilaterally without the consent of the vendee
thereof i.e. the petitioner in this writ petition and when the District Sub-
Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) has made entry to the said deed of
cancellation in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate
in the office of the O.P. No.2 against the properties covered under the sale
deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1), then at
this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of
the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court,
cancellation of registration through deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) unilaterally by the
vendor (O.P. No.3) is illegal and the entries of such cancellation made by
the O.P. No.2 in the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance
Certificate in the office of the O.P. No.2 against the properties covered
under the sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1) is illegal.
7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
Cancellation of registration of the sale deed bearing
No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-1) unilaterally by its
vendor i.e. O.P. No.3 through the deed of cancellation bearing
No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4) is held as illegal.
The District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) is directed through
issuance of writ of mandamus to delete the entry of the deed of
cancellation bearing No.10391102394 dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure-4)
from the register meant for issuance of Encumbrance Certificate in the
office of the O.P. No.2 made against the entry of the properties covered
under the registered sale deed bearing No.10391101963 dated 18.02.2011
(Annexure-1) immediately on the very same day of the communication of
this judgment to the O.P. No.2.
9. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment immediately to
the O.P. No.2 for immediate compliance of the directions made in this
judgment by the O.P. No.2.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
03.04.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Date: 03-Apr-2025 15:32:47 W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2022
