Orissa High Court
*** vs Sub-Registrar on 17 October, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.14398 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
M/s. Radha Raman Tradecom Private Limited.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
Sub-Registrar, Barchana, Jajpur & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. G. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
(For the Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4)
Mr. Himanshu Patnaik, Advocate.
(For Opp. Party No.5)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 10.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 17.10.2025
J UDGMENT
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner-
company praying for quashing the letter No.948 dated
21.12.2024 of Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) &
letter No.3744 dated 31.07.2018 of Collector and District
Magistrate, Jajpur (Opp. Party No.4) and to direct the Sub-
Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) and IGR, Odisha,
Cuttack (Opp. Party No.2) to make an Entry to the Certificate
of Sale dated 20.11.2024 issued by the State Bank of India,
Stressed Asset Management Branch-II (Opp. Party No.5) in
Book 1 of its Sub-Registrar's office as per Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which
prompted the petitioner-company for filing of the same is that,
one M/s Sabitri Industries Pvt. Ltd. had incurred loans from
Opp. Party No. 5 (SBI Stressed Asset Management Branch-II)
and due to default in payment of loan dues of the Opp. Party
No.5-Bank by the loanee-M/s. Sabitri Industries Pvt. Ltd., the
secured assets of the said loan i.e. landed properties indicated
specifically in the Para No.4 of the writ petition were put to
public auction as per law and the petitioner was the highest
bidder of the said auction amongst other participants of that
auction sale and paid the auctioned money and purchased the
properties indicated in Para No.4 of this writ petition. So, as
per law, the Opp. Party No. 5-Bank issued copy of Certificate
of Sale on dated 20.11.2024 containing the said properties to
the Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No. 1) for making an
entry thereof in Book 1 of its office as per section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908, but as per letter No.948 dated
21.12.2024, the Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1)
refused to make entry to the copy of the said sale certificate in
Book 1 of its office on the basis of the Letter No.3744 dated
31.07.2018 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Jajpur
(Opp. Party No.4), as the Collector and District Magistrate,
Jajpur (Opp. Party No.4) had stated in that letter that, the
transfer of the properties involved in the copy of the sale
certificate has been stopped due to the non-payment of some
outstanding dues by the loanee-company i.e. M/s. Sabitri
Industries Private Limited. For which, without getting any
way, the petitioner being the auction-purchaser of the
properties involved in the sale certificate filed this writ petition
against the Opp. Parties praying for quashing the letter
No.948 dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure-9) of Sub-Registrar,
Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) & letter No.3744 dated
31.07.2018 (Annexure-9) of Collector and District Magistrate,
Jajpur (Opp. Party No.4) and to direct the Sub-Registrar,
Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) and IGR, Odisha, Cuttack (Opp.
Party No.2) to make an entry to the properties covered in the
copy of sale certificate dated 20.11.2024 issued by the
authorized officer of the State Bank of India, Stressed Asset
Management Branch-II (Opp. Party No.5) in Book 1 as per
Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.
3. All the Opp. Parties have filed their respective counter
affidavits.
The Opp. Party No.5 has supported the case of the
petitioner-company.
4. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Opp.
Party Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party
No.5.
5. Analyzing the provisions of law envisaged in Section
89(4), 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 along with the
provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act),
"The law has already been settled that, the
authorized officer who conducts an auction sale
shall forward a copy of the certificate of such
sale to the local registering authority to enable
him to file the same in Book-1 maintained by him
in his Registration Office and the said sale
certificate does not require registration, because
as per Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act,
1908 the said sale certificate is specifically
exempted from its mandatory registration.
When a copy of the sale certificate is
forwarded by the authorized officer to the Sub-
Registrar after issuance of sale certificate to the
auction purchaser for filing of the same in Book-1
of its local registration office, then, the Sub-
Registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the
same in Book-1 of his office, for no other reason,
but as per law, for preservation of a record
relating to the said auction sale in the local
registration office of the Government. Because,
the filing of the copy of the sale certificate in
Book-1 of the local registration office becomes the
record in the local registration office of the
Government."
6. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified by the Apex Court and Hon'ble Courts in the ratio of
the following decisions:
I. In a case between B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government
of India & Others reported in (2007) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 745 that, a sale certificate issued by the
authorized officer to the Sub-Registrar is specifically
exempted from mandatory registration under Section
17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. (para No.12)
II. In a case between Esjaypee Impex Private Limited
Vs. Assistant General Manager & Authorized
Officer, Canara Bank reported in 2021 (11) SCC
537 that, the mandate of law that flows from a
combined reading of Sections 17(2)(xii) and Section
89(4) of the Registration Act respectively is that, the
auction purchaser is entitled to receive the original
sale certificate and a copy of the same is required to
be forwarded to the sub-Registrar for the purpose of
filing in Book 1 as per the Registration Act.
Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to enter the details
of the sale certificate in Book 1 maintained in terms
of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 and that
process of filing the copy of the sale certificate in
Book 1 does not attract stamp duty.
III. In a case between M/s. Eva Agro Feeds Private
Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in
2023 SCC Online All 4073 that, as per the
provisions of Section 89(4), 17(2)(xii) & 55 of the
Indian Registration Act, the certificate of sale being
not compulsorily registerable document as is clear
from Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. For
which, when a sale certificate is forwarded by the
authorized officer to the Sub-Registrar, then, on
getting such sale certificate, the Sub-Registrar shall
file the same in Book 1 maintained by him as per law.
IV. In a case between Bank of Baroda, represented by
its Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager Vs.
District Sub-Registrar, Officer and others reported
in 2025 SCC Online Ori 653 that, when as per the
provisions of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act,
1908, the sale certificate is forwarded by the
authorized officer of the Bank to the Sub-Registrar for
filing of the same in Book 1 but not for registration in
view of the Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act,
then, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to file the same
in Book 1 of his office.
V. In a case between B. Vijaykumar & Others Vs. The
Sub-Registrar, Kerla decided in WP(C) No.14650 of
2024 (Kerla) on 19.05.2024 (Para No.24) that, in
view of the categorical pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court taking into account to the provisions
of Section 89(4) & 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act,
the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to enter the details of
the sale certificate in Book 1 maintained in terms of
the provisions contained in Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908.
VI. In a case between Shanti Devi L. Singh Vs. Tax
Recovery Officer & Others reported in AIR 1991
(SC) 1880 that, when as per Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908, the copy of the sale certificate
is forwarded to the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar
is obliged under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act
to file the same in Book 1 tantamount to registration
under the Registration Act. Because, the filing of the
same in Book 1 is not a registration, which attracts
stamp duty under the relevant Stamp Act, but a
Ministerial Act of record keeping. For which, Sub-
Registrar cannot refuse to enter the details of sale
certificate in Book 1.
VII. In a case between Sri Balaji, represented by Its
Partner D. Kavi Kumar Vs. I.G.R., Chennai &
Others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.L.J 736 (Madras)
that, SARFAESI Act, 2002 will not come under the
purview of conveyance, since it is not a transfer inter
vivos, it is a transfer by operation of law.
VIII. In a case between Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets
Recovery Branch, Cuttack represented by its
Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager at Sector
7 CDA, Cuttack Vs. District Sub-Registrar,
Cuttack & Others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 919
that, when a copy of the Sale Certificate is forwarded
to the local registration office, the local sub-registrar
cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book
No.1 of the Registration office, for no other reason,
but as per law, for preservation of a record relating to
the concerned auction sale, which would form the
record in the local Registration Office of the
Government. Sub-Registrar was directed to file the
copy of the Sale Certificate in the Book No.1 of its
office.
IX. In a case between State of Punjab & Another Vs.
M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reported in
2025 (2) Civ.L.J. 58 (SC) that, property sold by
auction sale in favour of highest bidder--Effect--Title
of such property passes to auction purchaser under
Order XXI, Rule 92. Only Sale Certificate is required
to be issued under Order XXI, Rule 94, which is
merely formal declaration of his right. By such
auction sale, no title is created or extinguished. As
such, Section 17(1) is not attracted and registration
of Sale Certificate under Section 17(2)(xii) is not
required. Auction purchaser has only to send copy of
Sale Certificate to Sub-Registrar under Section 89(4)
for filing it in Book 1 as per Registration Act. Auction
purchaser is not required to pay any stamp duty for
the same. (Para Nos.13 to 20).
A notification has already been issued by the
Government of Orissa i.e. Government of Odisha, Revenue
and Disaster Management Department Letter No.45316/R &
DM dated 28.12.2023 superseding the previous Letter No.
letter No. 32814/R&DM dated 24.10.2016 and Letter No.
29204/R&DM dated 04.09.2017 forwarding the same to Addl.
Chief Secretary to Government to I.G.R. Odisha, Cuttack and
all Revenue Divisional Commissioners and Collectors about
the entry of Sale Certificate in Book 1 of local registration
office as follows:
"the Law Department has been consulted in the
matter. The Law Department has advised that the
Registering authority is to make necessary entries
in Book-1 on production of Sale Certificate issued
by the authorurised officer without registration
and payment of stamp duty and registration fees
thereof."
7. Here in this matter at hand, when the copy of the Sale
Certificate dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure-6) was forwarded by
the authorized officer of the Bank (Opp. Party No.5) after
completion of auction sale to the Sub-Registrar, Barchana
(Opp. Party No.1) for making necessary entry of the property
details in the said sale certificate (specifically indicated in Para
No.4 of this writ petition) in Book 1 of its Office and when as
per propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions of the Apex Court and Hon'ble Courts, the Sub-
Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) was obliged under law
to make entry of the property details of that sale certificate in
Book 1 of its Office and when as per law, the Sub-Registrar,
Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) should not have refused to make
entry of the property details of the sale certificate in Book 1,
then, at this, juncture, the Letter No.948 dated 21.12.2024 of
the Opp. Party No.1 for the refusal of the Opp. Party No.1 to
make entry of the property details of the sale certificate in
Book 1 on the basis of the Letter No.3744 dated 31.07.2018 of
the Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur (Opp. Party
No.4) cannot be sustainable under law in view of the
principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above
decisions.
For which, the said letter No.948 dated 21.12.2024
issued by the Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) to
the petitioner vide Annexure-9 is liable to be quashed.
As such, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
9. The letter No.948 dated 21.12.2024 (annexure-9) issued
by the Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) to the
petitioner is quashed.
10. The Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party No.1) is
directed for filing of the sale certificate dated 20.11.2024
(Annexure-6) issued by the authorized officer of the Opp. Party
No.5-Bank in respect of the property details indicated therein
in Book 1 of its Registration Office on the very same date of
the production of the certified copy of this Judgment by the
petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Barchana (Opp. Party
No.1).
11. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 17 .10. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
