Orissa High Court
Sabita Agrawala vs State Of Odisha on 4 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2946 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Sabita Agrawala .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented through .... Opposite Parties
the Secretary Revenue and Disaster
Management, Government of
Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty
Learned Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 24.06.2025 / date of judgment : 04.07.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties
praying for quashing(setting aside) the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated
16.12.2024(Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar,
Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-Registrar,
Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) for temporary stoppage of registration of
plots and their subsequent divided plots indicated in the said letter vide
Annexure-6.
2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-Opposite
Parties.
3. The RoR of Khata No.217 containing several plots indicated in
Annexure-6 was published in the name of Banamali Vyas. As per orders
passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975, the Tahasildar, Boudh corrected the
RoR of Khata No.217 from the name of Banamali Vyas to the name of
his legal heirs after the death of Banamali Vyas. The legal heirs of
Banamali Vyas sold the said properties covered under Khata No.217 in
Mouza-Boudhgarh to the petitioner of this writ petition on dated
09.07.2014 by executing and registering a sale deed. Thereafter, the RoR
of the said properties was corrected to the name of the petitioner as per
the orders passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and
1060/14 respectively filed by the petitioner.
Out of the properties under Khata No.217, the petitioner alienated
Ac.10.000 decimal to her different purchasers through different sale
deeds and the said purchasers of the petitioner have already mutated their
purchased properties to their names through different mutation cases.
4. Thereafter, the Additional Tahasildar, Bouth filed an appeal vide
Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub-collector,
Boudh(Opposite Party No.3) challenging the orders for mutation of the
properties under Khata No.217 passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14,
1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 respectively in favour of the petitioner
along with her purchasers on the basis of orders passed by the Member,
Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in OLR Revision Case No.24 of 1994
in setting aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh in OLR Case
No.830 of 1975.
As, in the said Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub-
collector, Bouth, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party, for which,
the petitioner filed an application under Order-1, Rule-10 of the C.P.C.
on dated 22.06.2024 in that Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 for her
impleadment as a party, which is pending for consideration.
5. While, the matters had stood thus, she(petitioner) came to know
that, the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) has
issued Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) to the
District Sub-registrar, Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) directing
him(Opposite Party No.4) to stop registration of plots covered under
Khata No.217 and subsequent divided plots thereof until further order to
avoid any dispute in future as per request letter dated 03.12.2024 of the
Tahasildar, Boudh indicating therein that,
"The Tahasildar, Boudh has intimated him that, properties
indicated in that Annexure-6 containing eight plots covered under
Khata No.217 in Mouza-Boudhgarh primarily belongs to the
Ceiling surplus land of Sri Navin Prasad Dev, but, the same were
mutated as per order passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975 in
favour of Smt. Suman Joshi and five others misinterpreting to the
order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C)
No.6970 of 2008. In this connection, Mutation Appeal No.01 of
2024 has been initiated before the Sub-collector, Boudh. Further,
it has been reported that, some transactions and mutations have
already been done over the concerned plots and it is going on."
6. After knowing about the issuance of that Annexure-6 by the ADM-
cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-
registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) regarding temporary stoppage of
registration of plots and their subsequent divided plots covered under
Khata No.217 of Mouza-Boudhgarh indicated in that Annexure-6, the
petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for
quashing that Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6),
as the said letter is ultimately affecting her rights in respect of the
properties recorded in her name covered in that letter vide Annexure-6.
7. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the following decisions in order to quash the
Annexure-6 issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite
Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4)
and the said decisions are :-
(i) 2025(I) OLR-887 : Daitari Jena vrs. State of Odisha
and others.
(ii) 2025(I) OLR-936 : Jajati Keshari Mohanty vrs. State
of Odisha and others.
(iii) 2025(I) OLR-874 : Damodar Mishra vrs. State of
Odisha and others.
8. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for the State in support
of the Anenxure-6 issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh
(Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite
Party No.4) relied upon the following decision:-
(i) W.P.(C) No.11897 of 2023 : T. Thevarasan,
represented by his Power of Attorney Agent A Navaneetham
vrs. The Sub Registrar Joint-II, South Chennai, Chennai and
others (Madras).
9. On the basis of the rival contentions of the learned counsels of
both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is,
Whether, the issuance of Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated
16.12.2024(Annexure-6) by the ADM-cum-District Registrar,
Boudh to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4)
regarding temporary stoppage of registration of plots and their
subsequent divided plots indicated in that Annexure-6 is
inconformity with law?
10. Section 68 of The Registration Act, 1908 provides power to the
District Registrars like the Opposite Party No.2 in this writ petition to
exercise power of superintendence and control over Sub-registrars
including the District Sub-registrar under him/her inside the District.
The said power of the ADM-cum-District Registrar under Section
68 of The Registration Act is only an administrative power.
Section 68 of The Registration Act does not empower any ADM-
cum-District Registrar like Opposite Party No.2 in this matter at hand to
direct the Sub-registrars under him/her inside the District like Opposite
Party No.4 for non-registration of any document presented for
registration, if the said document complies with the statutory
requirements and formalities of its registration.
Section 22-A (as inserted into the statute book on dated
22.02.2014) of the Registration Act empowers the Registering Officer for
the refusal to register certain documents enumerated therein.
11. Neither Section 68 nor Section 22-A of the Registration Act
empowers any District Registrar like Opposite Party No.2 in this writ
petition to direct the Sub-registrars under him like District Sub-registrar,
Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) not to register any document presented for
registration, if the said document fulfills the statutory requirements and
formalities of registration.
12. Section 22-A of the Registration Act empowers the Sub-registrars
like District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) to refuse the
registration of any instrument, if the properties covered therein fall within
the purview of Sub-clause(a), (b) and (c) of that Section 22-A.
13. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
by the Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions interpreting
Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 :-
(i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association vrs.
State of Bihar :reported in AIR 1989(Patna)-144 (Para
No.5)--Indian Registration Act, 1908--Section 68--Scope of
the Section--The power of the District Registrar under Section
68 of the Registration Act, 1908 is an administrative power to
exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-registrars.
The Registrar in exercise of the power under Section 68 of the
Registration Act, 1908 cannot direct the Sub-registrars not to
register a document presented for registration, if the document
complies with the statutory requirements and formalities of
Registration.
(ii) In a case between Jodh Singh vrs. The Registrar :
reported in 1999(1) Civil Court Cases(P&H)-413 (Para
No.15)--Registration Act, 1908--Section 68--Scope of the
Section--The power conferred under Section 68 of the Act on
the Registrar is to exercise superintendence and control over
the Sub-registrar, which is an administrative power.
(iii) In a case between P. Pappu vrs. The Sub-Registrar,
Rasipuram SRO, Rasipuram, Namakkal district : reported in
2025(2) Civil Law Judgments-205(Madras (Para No.8)--
Registration Act, 1908--Section 22-A, 68 and 69--
Registration of instrument--Refusal--Legality--Even if a
person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no
provision in the Registration Act, to enable the Sub-registrar to
refuse registration except Section 22-A of the Registration Act.
14. When, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the
ratio of the above decisions interpreting Section 68 of the Registration
Act, 1908 that, Section 68 of The Registration Act confers power upon
the Registrar only for exercising his/her superintendence and control over
the Sub-registrars and the said power is purely administrative in nature,
therefore, the Registrar cannot in exercise of his power under Section 68
of the Registration Act, 1908 direct any Sub-registrar not to register any
document in respect of any property presented for registration, if the said
document complies all the statutory requirements and formalities of the
Registration Act and Rules making the same fit for registration. For
which, it is held that, the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated
16.12.2024(Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar,
Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh
(Opposite Party No.4) to stop registration of the plots indicated in that
Annexure-6 and subsequent divided plots thereof is not inconformity
with the provisions of law. As such, the ADM-cum-District Registrar,
Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) had no power or authority under law to
issue the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) to
the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) directing him to
stop registration of the properties covered under Annexure-6.
Therefore, Annexure-6, which was issued by the ADM-cum-
District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-
registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) being contrary to law is liable to
be quashed. For which, the decisions relied by the parties indicated in
para nos.7 and 8 of this judgment have become inapplicable being
distinguishable from this matter at hand on facts and law as discussed
above.
15. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
16. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6)
issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2)
to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) is quashed(set
aside)
17. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 4th of June, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
