Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India) vs The State Of Odisha on 17 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2842 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Rajani Kanta Palo .... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Odisha, represented .... Opposite Parties
through the Principal Secretary to
Government, Department of Revenue
and Disaster Management, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Behea-1, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Smt. J. Sahoo,
Learned Additional Standing
Counsel
None appears for Opposite Party
No.7
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 / date of judgment : 17.09.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the
order of refusal of registration of the deed for sale of the petitioner passed
on dated 05.12.2024(Annexure-5 series) by the Sub-registrar,
Berhampur-II, Ganjam (Opposite Party No.4) on the basis of the Letter
No.11928 dated 14.10.2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi,
Ganjam indicating that, the deed for sale submitted by the petitioner
before the Opposite Party No.4 for registration is a forged one and notice
has been issued by him(Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi) to the petitioner for
his appearance before him(Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi), but, he(petitioner)
has not submitted any written statement as yet.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
3. As per the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the
parties basing upon the impugned order vide Annexure-5 series passed
by the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II, Ganjam(Opposite Party No.4), the
crux of this writ petition is that,
whether, the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II(Opposite Party No.4)
has power, jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse registration of
the deed for sale of the petitioner on the basis of the Letter No.11928
dated 14.10.2024 of the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi(Opposite Party No.5)
stating that, the deed presented by the petitioner for registration is a
forged one is sustainable under law ?
4. The law on this aspect has already been clarified in the ratio of
following decisions :-
(i) 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)--If the transferor does not have any title or has an
imperfect title in the property for sale, 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.
(ii) In a case between Balachandran vrs. Sub-Registrar and others
and Premakumaran and others vrs. Sub-Registrar and others:
reported in 2023(3) Civil Court Cases-609(Kerala)--Persons executing
document can only transfer right that, they have--Merely because, they
are purporting to transfer possessory rights and they are not been able to
produce any prior documents cannot be a ground for Sub-register to
refuse registration.(Para-4)
(iii) In a case between Kailash and others vrs. Sub-registrar of
Assurance, Indore : reported in AIR 1985 (M.P.)-12(Para-15) that--
When, a document is presented, it is for the Sub-registrar to discharge
its duties in accordance with law, which necessarily excludes
extraneous considerations, as such, instructions or directions having no
foundation in law and no public authority while so acting would
introduce its own fanciful notions in the matter.
(iv) In a case between Tejpal and another vrs. State of Haryana
and others : reported in 2015(Sup.1) Civil Court Cases-471(P&H)--
Sub-registrar cannot refuse to register a document on the ground of title,
because, such dispute is exclusive domain of civil court and dispute of
title can never be used before a Sub-registrar by any party.
(v) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another vrs. The Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and another : reported in
2012(3) Civil Court Cases-736(P&H)-- that, want of ownership and title
of vendor--Jurisdiction of Registering Authority--It does not fall in the
domain of registering authority to embark into the question of ownership
when document is presented for registration--Impugned order set aside--Sub-
Registrar directed to register sale deed.
(vi) In a case between Daitari Jena vrs. State of Orissa : reported in
2025(I) OLR-887 that, Section 34(3) of the Registration Act, 1908 does
not authorize the registering officer to enquire consequential legal effect
as well as merit of the deed of question presented for registration and to
refuse to its registration expressing opinion on its merit.(Para-7)
(vii) In a case between Smt. Sulochanama vrs. H. Nanjundaswamy
and others : reported in 2001(1) Civil Court Cases-568(Karnataka)--
Refusal to register the deed for sale by the Sub-registrar on the basis of
report of the Tahasildar, to whom the matter was referred, as the
Tahasildar reported that, land revenue documents were false. In spite of
such report of the Tahasildar stating that, land revenue documents
concerning deed for sale were false, still then, the Sub-register is not
entitled to refuse registration on the basis of such report of the
Tahasildar, when the deed presented for registration was complete in its
all respects for registration.(Para-5)
5. In view of the propositions of law as clarified in the ratio of the
above decisions, the Sub-registrars like the Opposite Party No.4 had no
power, jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse registration of the
deed for sale of the petitioner on the basis of Letter No.11928 dated
14.10.2024 issued by the Tahasildar, Kukudakhandi(Opposite Party
No.5) to the Opposite Party No.4 for non-registration of the same.
6. For which, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 series passed by
the Opposite Party No.4 cannot be sustainable under law.
7. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order passed by the Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II
(Opposite Party No.4) through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
8. As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
9. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
10. The impugned order dated 05.12.2024(Annexure-5 series) passed
by the Sub-registrar(Opposite Party No.4) for refusal of the registration
of deed for sale of the petitioner is quashed.
11. The Opposite Party No.4 (Sub-registrar, Berhampur-II) is directed
to register the deed for sale, if presented by the petitioner again annexing
the certified copy of this judgment and to act upon the same for its
registration as per Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa
Registration Rule, 1988.
If the same is registered, then, after its registration to return the
registered sale deed to the petitioner within three days of its registration
after complying its all formalities as per Section 100 of the Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988 as well as Notification No.2915 dated
12.08.2017 of the IGR, Odisha.
12. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 17th of September, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
