Orissa High Court
Dipti Biswal vs Addl. District Magistrate-Cum- .... ... on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16436 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Dipti Biswal .... Petitioner
-versus-
Addl. District Magistrate-cum- .... Opposite Parties
District Registrar, Khordha and
Others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. S. K. Nayak-2,
Advocate.
Mr. S. S. K. Nayak,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :10.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for
quashing the Order No.763 dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-4) passed under
Section 22-A(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 by the Sub-Registrar,
Khandagiri (O.P. No.2) as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908
and the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Registration
Appeal No.8 of 2024 under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 by
the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Khordha (O.P. No.1).
Page 1 of 6
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner executed a power of
attorney vide Annexure-1 on dated 13.01.2021 in respect of the properties
covered therein in favour of the O.P. No.3 (SN Construction and
Developer) and the said Annexure-1 was registered on that day i.e. on
13.01.2021
before the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.2). After
execution and registration of such power of attorney vide Annexure-1, the
attorney holder thereof i.e. O.P. No.3 (SN Construction and Developer)
did not develop the properties covered under the said Annexure-1 and
also did not construct any building as per the terms of Annexure-1. For
which, the petitioner revoked that Annexure-1 (Power of Attorney) and
intimated about the same through a letter dated 18.04.2024 vide
Annexure-2 to the O.P. No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the
deed of revocation/cancellation of the Annexure-1 before the O.P. No.2
(Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri) for registration, but the Sub-Registrar,
Khandagiri (O.P. No.2) refused to register the said Annexure-1 assigning
its reasons as per refusal Order No.763 dated 22.05.2024 vide Annexure-
4 as follows:-
"the said Annexure-1 is a sharing power. As it is a
development power, it cannot be permissible for unilaterally
cancel. So, the document is liable to be refused under Section
22-A(C) of the Registration Act, 1908."
3. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned order i.e. refusal
Order No.763 dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-
Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.2), the petitioner challenged the same
preferring an appeal vide Registration Appeal No.8 of 2024 under Section
72 of the Registration Act, 1908 before the Addl. District Magistrate-
cum-Registrar, Khordha (O.P. No.1).
After hearing, the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Registrar,
Khordha (O.P. No.1) dismissed that Registration Appeal No.8 of 2024 of
the petitioner as per its order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-5) and
confirmed the order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-4) of the O.P. No.2.
4. On being aggrieved with the above impugned order dated
22.05.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P.
No.2) as well as the order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in
Registration Appeal No.8 of 2024 by the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-
District Registrar, Khordha (O.P. No.1), the petitioner challenged the
same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the said Annexure-4 & 5
passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.2) and District
Registrar, Khordha (O.P. No.1).
5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
6. In order to assail the impugned orders vide Annexure-4 & 5 passed
by the O.P. Nos.2 & 1 respectively, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court between Thankamma George
Vrs. Lilly Thomas and another in Civil Appeal No.6495 of 2023.
7. The Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.2) has refused to register
the unilateral cancellation of Annexure-1 on the ground that,
"Annexure-1 is a sharing power. As it is a development power, it
cannot be permissible for unilaterally cancel."
To which, O.P. No.1 (District Registrar) confirmed as per the
impugned order dated 04.03.2025 (Annexure-5) passed in Registration
Appeal No.8 of 2024.
8. Now, the question arises;
whether, refusal of registration to the unilateral cancellation of
Annexure-1 is sustainable under law or not?
9. It is forthcoming from Paragraph Nos.2, 3, 7, 8 & 9 of Annexure-1
that, the said Annexure-1 was executed between the petitioner and O.P.
No.3 for the development of the properties described in Schedule-A of
the said Annexure-1 constructing buildings and in such constructions, the
petitioner will have 41% share and the O.P. No.3 will have 59% share.
So, the contents of the Annexure-1 are clearly and unambiguously
going to show that, the said Annexure-1 is virtually a development
agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney.
10. The law relating to the registration of the unilateral cancellation of
a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between P. Venkata Ravi Kishore and Ors. Vrs.
JMR Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others (at Para No.40) reported in
2022 SCC Online 3387 (Telengana) that,
Whenever registered documents such as Development
Agreement-cum-GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and
registration of such a document/deed must be at the instance of
both the parties i.e. bilaterally and not unilaterally.
Unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney under the Registration
Act is not permissible under in law.
(ii) In a case between Rajashree Gajendra Vrs. District Sub-
Registrar, Khordha and another in W.P.(C) No.32589/2023 on
dated 31.01.2024 and W.P.(C) No.17617 of 2025 on dated
22.08.2025 that,
For cancellation of a registered deed of JVA (joint venture
agreement), presence of both the parties to the said agreement
require.
11. There is no indication/reflection in any of the clauses of Annexure-
1 about its unilateral cancellation.
12. When, it is held above that, the Annexure-1 is a development
agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney and when there is no
reflection/indication in the said Annexure-1 about its unilateral
cancellation, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law
enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the
refusal of registration to the unilateral cancellation of the Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (Annexure-1) by the O.P.
Nos.2 & 1 through the orders dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure-4) &
04.03.2025 (Annexure-5) under Sections 71 & 72 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P.
No.2) and District Registrar, Khordha (O.P. No.1) cannot be held as
illegal.
For which, the question of interfering with the impugned orders
dated 22.05.2024 & 04.03.2025 vide Annexure-4 & 5 passed by the Sub-
Registrar, Khandagiri (O.P. No.2) and A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar,
Khordha (O.P. No.1) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner does
not arise.
Therefore, the decision cited by the petitioner indicated in
Paragraph No.6 of this judgment has become inapplicable to this matter at
hand on facts for the reasons assigned above.
13. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must fail.
14. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on
contest and the same is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Signature 14.11.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Nov-2025
