Orissa High Court
Jajati Keshari Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Jajati Keshari Mohanty .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mohapatra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. S. Nayak,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
for O.Ps.1 to 3
Mr. K. Gaya,
Advocate. for O.Ps.4 & 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :03.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :12.03.2025
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
quashing (setting aside) the orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and
14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and in
Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the District Sub-
Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and
Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite
party No.2) respectively.
Page 1 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he (petitioner) is the owner of the
properties vide Plot Nos.543/1734 and 544/1735 under Khata No.574/84
in mouza Mallikashpur, Unit No.16 under Town Police Station in the
District of Balasore.
In order to meet the necessities of the petitioner i.e. for
construction of a new building as well as for repayment of hand loans, he
(petitioner) gave proposal for sale of his above two plots to one Anadi
Charan Pati of village Armala under Remuna Police Station in the
District of Balasore for a consideration of Rs.1,25,38,024/- (rupees one
crore twenty five lakh thirty eight thousand twenty four), to which, he
(Anadi Charan Pati) agreed. Then as per the understandings between the
petitioner and his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, the date of execution and
registration of the deed of sale between them in respect of the above two
plots of the petitioner was fixed to 07.07.2023.
Accordingly, on dated 07.07.2023, the petitioner purchased e-
stamp papers for Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six thousand nine
hundred twenty) for execution of the sale deed on the same. Then, the
details of the sale transactions relating to sale of the aforesaid two plots of
the petitioner in favour of his vendee Anadi Charan Pati were typed
through computer system on the aforesaid purchased stamp papers of the
petitioner according to the versions of the petitioner in presence of his
vendee Anadi Charan Pati and witnesses. After completion of typing and
Page 2 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
knowing about the contents of the sale deed and admitting the same to be
as correct, the petitioner, his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, witnesses, deed
writer and advocate signed on the same. Annexure-1 Series is the copy of
the said executed sale deed with receipt of e-stamp papers.
Thereafter, the petitioner presented the said executed sale deed
before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) for
registration of the same on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 and accordingly, as
per the direction of the opposite party No.3, the said deed was processed
in the office of the opposite party No.3 for registration. During the course
of processing, as per the requirements under law, the petitioner paid
Rs.5,03,050/- (rupess five lakh three thousand fifty) in total towards
registration fees, user charges along with other required fees as per
Annexure-2 and the said deed was generated through e-registration
system with ID No.62306699 and as such, all the legal formalities and
requirements for registration of the sale deed was completed and that sale
deed was fully ready for registration after being checked and processed in
its all respect on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 by the opposite party No.3
and its staffs in his office.
On that day i.e. on 07.07.2023, when the said executed sale deed
was kept on the table of opposite party No.3 for registration and when the
petitioner, his vendee, identifier, witnesses, deed writer and advocate of
the petitioner were present in front of the table of the opposite party No.3
Page 3 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
and when the said sale deed was about to be registered by the opposite
party No.3, surprisingly, the opposite party No.3 did not register the same
and withhold the same from registering expressing about the complain of
a third party, namely, Santilata Das for non-registration of the same on
the basis of prior agreement to sell with her by the vendor. For which, the
petitioner, his vendee, identifier and witnesses, deed writer and advocate
were compelled to return back from the office of opposite party No.3.
Then, he (petitioner) brought the said matter to the notice of the
Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite
party No.2) and Inspector General, Registration, Odisha (opposite party
No.1), but, they did not pay any heed to the same.
Thereafter, on the basis of an order passed on dated 11.07.2023
(Annexure-3) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023, the opposite party No.3
refused the registration of the said sale deed, which was presented by the
petitioner on 07.07.2023 for registration assigning the reasons that,
"when the said sale deed (which was presented by the petitioner on
dated 07.07.2023 for registration) was under process of checking by his
official staffs prior to its registration, during that time, one Santilata
Das submitted her grievance stating that, the vendor of that deed had
made an agreement to sell with her in respect of the properties covered
in the sale deed and he has received Rs.17,00,000/- as advance money
from her, but now he denied to register the sale deed in her favour.
Therefore, the said Santilata Das prayed for postponement or
keep pending the registration of the sale deed, as she has already given
Rs.17,00,000/- as an advance and the registering authority is competent
Page 4 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
to keep pending the document as per Rule 146 of the Odisha
Registration Rules, 1988 without registering the same.
On verification of the document, it is found that, the recorded
tenant has submitted document for registration before him in order to
sell the properties to the other party without the knowledge of the
objector Santilata Das. When, I came to know the above facts, the
document was kept pending for examination of veracity of the
allegations of the objector Santilata Das. Today, the objector Santilata
Das submitted a status quo order passed by the Hon'ble Senior Civil
Judge, Balasore in I.A. No.92-118 of 2023 arising out of C.S.
No.107/135 of 2023 on dated 10.07.2023, in which, Hon'ble Court has
directed to maintain status quo on the land involved in the
deed/document, for which, the undersigned was not in a position to
register the said document on 07.07.2023. Because, the schedule land is
under sub-judice.
Keeping in view of the above facts, the undersigned is hereby
refused the registration of the sale deed produced by the recorded
tenant Shri Jajati Keshari Mohanty."
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.26247 of 2023 praying for a direction to the District Sub-
Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) for releasing the deed after its
registration. The Hon'ble Courts disposed of that writ petition vide
W.P.(C) No.26247 of 2023 filed by the petitioner giving liberty to the
petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 72 of the Indian Registration
Act, 1908 challenging the above order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3)
passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023.
Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide Registration
Appeal No.04 of 2023 before opposite party No.2 (District Registrar,
Page 5 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
Balasore) challenging the above order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3)
passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023.
In that Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023, the opposite party No.3
submitted its version in support of his order vide Annexure-3 stating that,
"the sale deed was presented for sale by the recorded tenant Shri
Jajati Keshari Mohanty before him on dated 07.07.2023 for
registration and the same was entered in e-registration system
bearing ID No.62306699 and after maintaining due official
procedures, e-ticket was generated and documents were presented
before him for admission of execution. But, during this process, one
Santilata Das submitted a grievance petition before him on the
same day i.e. on 07.07.2023 stating that, the vendor of the sale
deed i.e. Jajati Keshari Mohanty has made an agreement with her
to sell two plots involved in the sale deed for registration by
executing an agreement for sale before the Notary Public, Balasore
on dated 29.12.2018 and she has already paid Rs.17,00,000/-
(rupees seventy lakh) as advance money to him, but thereafter, in
spite of her request, the vendor of the sale deed did not execute the
sale deed in her favour.
After taking the grievance of Santilata Das into
consideration, he (opposite party No.3) kept the sale deed of Jajati
Keshari Mohanty pending for approval and rest consequential
formalities of completion of the registration procedure and
subsequently, he (opposite party No.3) came to know that, the
vendor of the deed is selling the properties without the knowledge
of Santilata Das and Santilata Das had lodged a complain against
the vendor of the deed before the S.D.J.M., Balasore alleging the
allegation of cheating and misappropriation vide I.C.C. Case
No.92 of 2021, which was sent to the I.I.C., Town P.S., Balasore
for registration of F.I.R., but I.I.C. did not take any step against the
vendor. He also came to know that, a suit vide C.S. No.107-135 of
Page 6 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
2023 has been filed by the objector Santilata Das against the
vendor praying for a direction to the vendor of the deed to execute
and register the sale deed in her favour and the said suit vide C.S.
No.107-135 of 2023 is sub-judice in the Court of Senior Civil
Judge, Balasore. In I.A. No.92/118 of 2023 of that suit, an order
has been passed on dated 10.07.2023 with direction to the parties
to maintain status quo in respect of the properties involved in the
deed. So, he (opposite party No.3) refused the registration of the
presented sale deed by its vendor as well as recorded tenant Jajati
Keshari Mohanty."
3. After hearing, the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District
Registrar, Balaosre (opposite party No.2) as per order dated 14.10.2024
(Annexure-4) dismissed the Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 filed by
the petitioner only accepting the findings made by the opposite party
No.3 on dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023
without giving his own finding in the same.
4. On being aggrieved with the above orders dated 11.07.2023
(Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case
No.01 of 2023 and in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the District
Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and Additional District
Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.2)
respectively against the petitioner refusing to register his sale deed
presented before opposite party No.3 on dated 07.07.2023, he (petitioner)
challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing
(setting aside) the Annexure-3 & 4 and to direct the District Sub-
Page 7 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
Registrar, Balasore to register his sale deed and to return the same on the
grounds that, after completion of all the procedures and formalities of
registration of the sale deed with payment of proper stamp duties,
registration fees, user charges and other charges as well as required
documents and photographs and after entering the said sale deed into the
e-registration system bearing ID No.62306699, the Sub-Registrar,
Balasore (opposite party No.3) had no jurisdiction or authority under law
to withhold the said sale deed without registering the same on a mere
complain of a third party to the deed, namely, Santilata Das for non-
registration of the same questioning its legal effect after registration. So,
the order of refusal to register the said sale deed passed by the District
Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) as per Annexure-3 and the
confirmation to the same by the opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-4
are bad and illegal under law. For which, the orders vide Annexure-3 & 4
passed by the opposite party Nos.3 & 2 are liable to be quashed and set
aside and direction is required to be given to the opposite party No.3 for
registration of the sale deed of the petitioner and to return the same after
its registration.
5. After filing of this writ petition by the petitioner, on the prayer of
Santilata Das and her brother Ashok Kumar Das, they (Santilata Das and
Ashok Kumar Das) impleaded as opposite party Nos.4 & 5 respectively
in this writ petition and they (opposite party Nos.4 & 5) submitted their
Page 8 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
counter in the shape of an affidavit challenging the writ petition of the
petitioner.
As per the affidavit of the opposite Nos.4 & 5, orders regarding refusal
for registration of the sale deed passed by opposite party Nos.3 & 2 are
proper and legal on the basis of an order of temporary injunction passed
on dated 14.09.2023 in I.A. No.92 of 2023 (CIS No.118 of 2023) arising
out of C.S. No.107-135 of 2023-I filed by them (opposite party Nos.4 & 5)
restraining the vendor of the deed i.e. Jajati Keshari Mohanty from
alienating the I.A. schedule property in favour of others. Because, the said
restraint order passed in I.A. No.92 of 2023 on dated 14.09.2023 against
the vendor of the sale deed has not been interfered by the Hon'ble Courts
due to withdrawal of C.R.P. No.18 of 2024 filed by the vendor of the deed
challenging the above restraint order. For which, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner (vendor of the sale deed) is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State i.e. opposite party Nos.1 to
3 and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 & 5.
7. During the course of hearing, when the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, the impugned order dated 11.07.2023
(Annexure-3) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 by the District Sub-
Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and the impugned order dated
14.10.2024 (Annexure-4) passed in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023
by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balasore
(opposite party No.2) cannot be sustainable under law, as the same are
contrary to law, to which, learned counsels for opposite party Nos.1 to 3
and opposite party Nos.4 & 5 objected contending in support of the
Page 9 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024 (Annexure-4)
passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.3) and
Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Balaosre (opposite
party No.2) respectively contending that, the said orders vide Annexure-3
& 4 are legal and proper. The same cannot be quashed/set aside.
8. On the basis of the petition of the petitioner supported with an
affidavit, counter affidavit of the opposite party Nos.4 & 5 and the rival
submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the crux of the writ
petition is,
whether the opposite party No.3 (District Sub-
Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore) has power, jurisdiction or
authority under law to withhold the sale deed presented by the
petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 for registration without registering
the same on the complain/objection of a third party to that deed i.e.
Santilata Das for non-registration of the same questioning the
merit and legal effect/consequence of that sale deed after its
registration, when all the formalities and requirements under law
for registration of that sale deed were completed on payment of
proper stamp duties of Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six
thousand nine hundred twenty), registration fee, user charges and
other fees in total Rs.5,03,050/- (rupess five lakh three thousand
fifty), required documents and photographs after generation of ID
No.62306699?
9. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following
decisions:-
Page 10 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
(i) In a case between Satya Pal Anand Vrs State of Madhya Pradesh
and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, Registering Officer is only
expected to reassure himself that, the document to be registered is
accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the
title or irregularity in the document, as such. The Registering Officer
cannot inquire into title, as his power is not quasi judicial, but
administrative in nature. Registering Officer cannot decide as to whether a
document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as
mentioned in the instrument.
(ii) In a case between Maitri Mohanty and Ors. Vrs. State of Odisha and
Ors. reported in 2019 (II) OLR 705, when the Sub-Registrar withhold the
registration of an instrument on the premises of untenable complaint, in
such a situation, direction is to be issued to the complainant that, he may
take shelter of the Civil Court to remedy out the difficulty. But, the
Registering Officer is to register the instrument forthwith and return the
registered instrument to the petitioner by completing the entire exercise
within three days from the date of service of the certified copy of this
judgment.
(iii) In a case between P. Balabhaskar Reddy and Ors. Vrs. The State of
Telangana and Ors. reported in 2021 (3) Civil Court Cases 684
(Telangana) (at Para Nos.8 & 9), when the Sub-Registrar collected fee and
validated document, then, once the document is made valid, it is not open
for the Sub-Registrar to declare the validated document as a document
without having force of law. Order of refusal to register the document set
aside, the Sub-Registrar directed to register and release the sale deed.
(iv) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs.
State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172
(Patna) & 1988 SCC Online Patna 142, if the transferor does not have any
title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will
either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the
prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering
authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. (Para 3)
(v) In a case between Dinesh Singh Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and
others reported in 2012 SCC Online Jharkhand 951 (at Para 13), if the
deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and when there is no legal
or formal defect, then the registering authority cannot refuse to register the
deed, if the same is presented for registration. Because, the registering
authority cannot delve into the roving enquiry of the nature of the right,
title of the vendor in respect of the subject matter of the deed presented for
registration.
(vi) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs. Regional
Development Commissioner for Iron & Steel and others reported in AIR
1991 Calcutta 62 (at Para 8), unless the relevant laws governing the matter
provide clearly to that effect, such an authority cannot go into question of
the merits of the transaction, to which, the document relate.
(vii) In a case between Tejpal and another Vrs. State of Haryana and
others reported in 2015 (Supp.) Civil Court Cases 471 (Punjab &
Haryana) (at Para 1), Registrar cannot join issues on title for refusing to
register the instrument. That shall be the exclusive domain of a civil court
Page 11 of 17
W.P.(C) No.5563 of 2025
in a proper litigation that is brought between the parties who are at lis
raising the dispute regarding title. A dispute on title can never be used
before a Registrar by any party.
(viii) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas Vrs.
State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 703
(Madhya Pradesh), refusal to register the sale deed on the ground that, a
dispute about title is pending in the Court. Sub-Registrar has no authority
to refuse to register a document on the ground that, the vendor/transferor
has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the
sale deed. Transferee would get the right, title and interest of his
vendor/transferor, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation.
(ix) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another reported in 2012 (3)
Civil Court Cases 736 (Punjab and Haryana), it does not fall within the
domain of the registrar or Sub Registrar to ask the executant of the deed to
establish his or her ownership in respect of the property which is subject
matter of the deed of conveyance.
(x) In a case between Sulochanamma Vrs. H. Nanjundaswamy and
others reported in 2001 (1) Civil Court Cases 568 (Karnataka) (at Para 5),
the registration of the deed was refused on the basis of the communication
received from the Tahasildar that, the revenue documents were all bogus
and false. The Sub-Registrar was entrusted with the duty of registering the
documents in accordance with the provisions of the Act and he was not
authorised to go into the genuineness or otherwise of the documents
presented before him for registration. Sub-Registrar directed to register the
sale deed.
(xi) In a case between Ajay Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of Jharkhand and
others reported in 2024 SCC Online Jharkhand 2127 (at para No.8), if the
said sale deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there is no
legal or formal defect, this Court is of the considered view that, the
Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the deed, if the same is
presented for registration, as the Registering Authority is debarred from
examining the nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject
matter of the sale deed presented for registration.
(xii) In a case between M/s Virenda Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Gwalior and another Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in
W.P. No.4705 of 2020 (MP) (at Para Nos.8 & 9), when sale deed was
produced before the competent authority fulfilling all requisite
requirements and the Statute does not provide any power to the competent
authority to refuse the registration of such document and refusal was for no
reason, therefore, the petition is allowed directing the respondents to
register the sale deed which was produced before the Sub Registrar on
25.01.2018. It is demystified that the restrained order passed by the High
Court in Second Appeal came in existence only on 15.02.2018 which is
apparently after the date of submission of sale deed, therefore, the said
order will not come in the way of registering officer nor will it curtail his
power to register the sale deed.
The Registering Authority is directed to register the sale deed w.e.f.
25.01.2018 and hand over the registered sale deed to the petitioners.
10. In view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court, when the sale
deed presented by the petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 was fully ready in
its all respect for its registration by the opposite party No.3 after
completion of all formalities and requirements for registration of the same
on payment of stamp papers for Rs.1,26,920/-(rupees one lakh twenty six
thousand nine hundred twenty), registration fee, user charges and other
fees in total Rs.5,03,050/- (rupees five lakh three thousand fifty) with
production of required documents and photographs including generation
of the same into e-registration system having its ID No.62306699 and
when the same was about to be registered on being placed on the table of
opposite party No.3 in presence of the petitioner, his vendee, identifier,
witnesses, deed writer and advocate and when no order of Court was in
existence on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 in respect of the properties
covered in that sale deed, the opposite party No.3 should not have
withheld the said sale deed from its registration expressing for non-
registration of the same on the complain of the third party to the deed i.e.
opposite party No.4 applying the provisions of Rule-146 of the Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988. Because, the provisions of the Rule-146 of the
Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 are not applicable to this matter at hand
for the refusal of registration of the sale deed presented before opposite
party No.3 on dated 07.07.2023 by the petitioner, as none of the essentials
of Sections 34 & 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 were/are fulfilled for
such refusal of registration.
For which, the above conduct of the opposite party No.3 i.e. his
abstaining from registering the sale deed on dated 07.07.2023 on the
complain of the third party (opposite party No.4) is contrary to law.
Likewise, the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3)
passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 refusing
to register the sale deed of the petitioner (which was presented by the
petitioner on dated 07.07.2023 for registration) on the ground of passing
of status quo order on dated 10.07.2023 in I.A. No.92 of 2023 is not
sustainable under law. Because, the opposite party No.3 had not
registered the sale deed on dated 07.07.2023, when the sale deed was
ready in its all respect for registration on that day i.e. on 07.07.2023 and
when, no order was passed in any Court till 10.07.2023 in respect of the
properties covered under the sale deed in view of the principles of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Courts
and Apex Court.
As per law, the opposite party No.3 had no authority or jurisdiction
to refuse the registration of the said deed on dated 07.07.2023 questioning
the title of the properties covered under the sale deed and the legal effect
of the properties covered under that sale deed after its registration.
That apart, when since 07.07.2023 till 10.07.2023, any Court's
order was not filed/produced by the opposite party No.4 before the
opposite party No.3 and when the opposite party No.3 intentionally and
deliberately had awaited for an order of Court as per the request of the
opposite party No.4 in order to assign the same as a cause/basis for
refusal of registration in his refusal order Anenxure-3, then at this
juncture, by taking the above conduct of the opposite party No.3 into
account and by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble
Courts referred to supra in a case between M/s Virenda Builders and
Developers Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior and another Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others to this matter at hand, it is held that, the impugned
order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.3
in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 cannot be sustainable under law.
11. When it is held that, the Order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3)
passed by the opposite party No.3 in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 is not
sustainable under law, then at this juncture, the order dated 14.10.2024
(Annexure-4) passed in Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the
opposite party No.2 only accepting the observations made by the opposite
party No.3 in Annexure-3 without giving his own finding can also not be
sustainable under law.
12. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is
held that, the orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024
(Annexure-4) passed in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and Registration
Appeal No.04 of 2023 by the opposite party Nos.3 & 2 respectively are
not sustainable under law, then at this juncture, there is justification under
law for making interference with the said orders passed by the opposite
party Nos.3 & 2 under Annexure-3 & 4 respectively through this writ
petition filed by the petitioner.
13. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
14. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on
contest.
The orders dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-3) and 14.10.2024
(Annexure-4) passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite
party No.3) and Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar,
Balaosre (opposite party No.2) in Refusal Case No.01 of 2023 and
Registration Appeal No.04 of 2023 respectively are quashed/set aside.
The District Sub-Registrar/Registering Officer, Balasore (opposite
party No.3) is directed to register the sale deed dated 07.07.2023 (which
is ready for registration on completion of legal formalities thereof) kept
pending before him (opposite party No.3) on the very same day of the
appearance of the petitioner, his vendee Anadi Charan Pati, identifier and
the witnesses of that deed with the certified copy of this judgment w.e.f.
07.07.2023 and to return the registered sale deed to the petitioner within
three days of its registration and to report about its compliance to this
Court in reference to this writ petition in order to avoid the multiplicity of
litigation between the parties relating to this matter only concerning the
registration of the sale deed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
12.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by:
UTKALIKA NAYAK
Reason:
Authentication
Location: High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Mar-2025
10:38:47
