Orissa High Court
Harekrushna Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others on 13 February, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S.Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.2258 of 2024
Harekrushna Jena ..... Appellant
versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. S.C. Samal, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 13th February, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Samal, learned advocate appears on behalf of
appellant and submits, all his client wanted to do was sell his
land. He executed conveyance and the document was placed for
registration. The Sub-Registrar, Mahanga on 29th December,
2023, refused to register the document. He submits, by
impugned order dated 27th June, 2024, purported reason given
for refusal to register was not interfered with. His client's writ
petition thus stood dismissed. His client is aggrieved.
W.A. no.2258 of 2024
2. Drawing attention to reasons given for refusal to register
he points out, pursuant to presentation of the document the
authority had made query of the Tahasildar regarding his client's
name recorded in the Record of Rights (RoR). He draws
attention to communication dated 27th December, 2023 made by
the Tahasildar to the Sub-Registrar. Text of the communication
is reproduced below.
"With reference to the subject cited above, I am to
intimate you that the RoR bearing khata No-1507/68
of mouza-Koliatha has been prepared on the strength
of mutation Case No-474/2006. It is at your liberty,
you shall go with the Registration Sale Deed as per
registration manual.
This is for favour of kind information and necessary
action."
There having had been above communication in answer to the
query made, thereafter the Sub-Registrar was bound to register
his client's document. The learned single Judge erred in
appreciating the facts and the law provided in sections 34 and 71
of Registration Act, 1908. He seeks interference in appeal.
3. Mr. Kar, learned advocate, Government Advocate appears
on behalf of State and submits, the Sub-Registrar made specific
W.A. no.2258 of 2024
query regarding appellant's name recorded in the RoR. He did
not get an answer that was satisfactory. No basis of transaction
was demonstrated for there having had been the mutation case
causing appellant's name to be recorded. In the circumstances
the Sub-Registrar committed no illegality for interference by the
learned single Judge. Moreover, appellant had statutory remedy
of appeal under the Act.
4. We appreciate that appellant had moved the writ Court
against the refusal of registration. The facts and circumstances
as are before us have not brought forward indication of illegality
other than omission on part of the Tahasildar to render
satisfactory answer. We have reproduced above the answer
given. The Tahasildar did say that the RoR had been prepared on
strength of mutation case no.474 of 2006. The record is
maintained by the administrative authorities. Entries made
therein are presumed to be good.
5. While on the one hand the Sub-Registrar is empowered to
refuse to register on reasons stated, appellant, his name standing
recorded and also thereby claiming to be owner of the land is
entitled to transfer the same for consideration and for the
document to be registered. This is a situation which requires
W.A. no.2258 of 2024
further probe into the facts, keeping in mind nothing adverse has
been done against appellant since year 2006, in respect of his
claim to ownership of the land. In the circumstances, we relegate
appellant to prefer appeal before the District Registrar. There
should be no question raised regarding time taken to prefer
appeal since, following the refusal appellant prosecuted his
claim for registration of the document before the writ Court and
thereafter in appeal. Appellant must file his appeal along with
certified copy of this judgment on or before 3rd March, 2025.
We have purposefully made our above observations, to be taken
into consideration by the appellate authority, in event the appeal
is filed for it to be adjudicated.
6. Impugned order stands modified. The appeal is disposed
of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Signature
GS/Radha
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
asant Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: ohc
Date: 13-Feb-2025 19:02:27
W.A. no.2258 of 2024
