Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 16 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.24700 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
Harishankar Deep & Another
... Petitioners.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ghanashyam Das, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing : 16.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 16.09.2025
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 petitioners
praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh in the
district of Bolangir (O.P. No.5) to accept the deed for sale of
the petitioners for registration, because, the Sub-Registrar,
Titilagarh in the district of Bolangir (O.P. No.5) orally refused
to receive that deed for sale for registration stating that, their
co-sharers have not signed in that deed for sale. For which,
without getting any way, the petitioners has filed this writ
petition praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh in
the district of Bolangir (O.P. No.5) to receive the deed for sale
of the petitioners and to register the same.
2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar
cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same
is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the
document or to refuse to register the same indicating the
reasons for non-registration, if that document is not legally fit
for registration.
According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for
registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the
same, but if the said document is not in compliance with the
provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that
document for registration assigning the reasons in writing
about the same.
4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been
clarified in a decision between North East Infrastructure
Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220
(Andhra Pradesh) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak
Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025
decided on 11.07.2025 that,
"the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to
receive the document and would consider the fitness of it
for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration
Act, 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive
a document which is presented for registration and process
the same.
5. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent
right/power to the co-sharers of a joint property like the
petitioners to transfer/alienate their undivided shares in
their joint property without the consent of their other co-
sharer or co-sharers and Sub-Registrar has no power to
refuse to receive the sale deed, if presented for registration
by co-sharers like the petitioners in this matter even if the
said deed for sale is executed without the consent and
signatures of their other co-sharers as vendors with the
petitioners.
On this aspect the propositions of law has already been
clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State
of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C)
No.4340 of 2025 wherein it has been held that,
As per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, co-
sharers/co-owners have their inherent right to
alienate their shares/interests in the Joint and
Undivided properties to the extent of their shares.
Therefore, even there will be any sale of specific
portion of land in the joint and undivided
properties by co-owners of the same indicating
boundaries thereof, still then, the said
transfer/sell would be deemed as a transfer of
shares of the vendors in the said joint and
undivided property. Any executive instruction or
circular issued by any authority including
Government contrary to the statutory law
envisaged under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882
restricting co-owners/co-sharers to alienate their
undivided shares/interests in their joint and
undivided property shall be deemed as non-est.
Because, executive instructions and circulars have
no applicability where statutory law governs the
field.
6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the above decisions and also taking the Rule 147 of
The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 into account, it is felt
proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing Sub-
Registrar, Titilagarh in the district of Bolangir (O.P. No.5) to
receive the deed for sale of the petitioners for alienation of
their shares in the plots covered in their deed for sale without
indicating the sale of any specific portion of the said plots and
without indicating the boundaries thereof, but only indicating
the alienation of their shares/interests therein on
presentation of the said deed for sale of the petitioners
annexing the certified copy of this Judgment and act upon the
same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988 in accordance with the principles of
law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions.
If the said deed is registered, then, after registration of
the same, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh in the district of
Bolangir (O.P. No.5) shall return that sale deed to the
petitioners within 3 days of its registration after complying all
the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated
02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 16 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak
Sr. Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India.
