Orissa High Court
Nishakar Das vs State Of Odisha & Others ........ ... on 17 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.22969 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
***
Nishakar Das ............. Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others ........ Opposite Parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Gopal Prasad Jena, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C.
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Date of Hearing: 02.09.2025 :: 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 dated 19.04.2025
(Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5)
refusing to register the deed for sale of the Petitioner on the
ground of non-production of the original previous sale deed in
respect of the properties covered under that deed.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. It appears from the impugned order dated 19.04.2025
vide Annexure-5 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P.
No.5) that, the said O.P. No.5 did not register the deed for sale
of the Petitioner assigning the reasons that, "though, the
Petitioner produced the mutation R.o.R. of the properties
covered under the deed for sale in his name showing as the
owner of the same vide Khata No.163/140 (Annexure-1), but,
he (Petitioner) did not produce the following documents i.e.
(i) Original sale deed, through which, the
mutation was allowed in his favour.
(ii) Non-production of the certified copy of the
records of the mutation case No.2004/85.
(iii) Non-production of the order passed by the
Revisional Authority under Section 15 of the OS & S
Act, 1958 in his favour in respect of the case land.
For which, without refusing the registration of the deed
for sale of the Petitioner, the O.P. No.5 allowed time to the
Petitioner so as to enable him (Petitioner) to produce the
aforesaid required documents by 16.08.2025, failing which, he
(O.P. No.5) shall refuse the registration of the deed for sale and
till then, the deed for sale (which was presented by the
Petitioner on dated 17.04.2025) is kept pending before him
(O.P. No.5) either for its registration or for refusal, as the case
may be.
4. Now, the question arises,
whether the Registering Officer i.e. Sub-Registrar,
Khaira (O.P. No.5) is authorized under law not to
register the deed for sale presented by the Petitioner on
the ground of non-production of the previous documents
on the basis of which, the R.o.R. of the proposed land
for sale vide Khata No.163/140 was prepared in the
name of the Petitioner?
5. 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:-
(i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association
and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in
1989 (2) Civ.C.C. 172 (Patna) in Para No.3 that,
It is not for the registering authority to enquire and
ascertain the title of the properties in a deed for sale to its
own satisfaction. Under the provisions of the T.P. Act,
1888, if the transferor does no have any title or has an
imperfect title in 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.
(ii) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs.
The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Ambala and
another reported in 2012 (3) Civ.C.C. (P & H) 736 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 question of
ownership, when document is presented for registration.
(iii) In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha
and others reported in 2025 (I) OLR 887 in Para No.7
that,
Section 34(3) of the Registration Act do not authorizes
the registering officer to enquire into the consequential
legal effect as well as merit of the deed in question
presented for registration and to refuse its registration
expressing opinion on its merit..
(iv) In a case between P.Papu Vrs. Sub-Registrar reported
in 2025 (II) C.L.J (Madras) 205 that,
Even if, a person sells a property that does not
belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act,
1908 to enable the Sub-registrar to refuse registration
except Section 22A of the said Act.
(v) In a case between K.Gopi Vrs. The Sub-Registrar and
others reported in 2025 (II) Civ.C.C. (S.C.) 320 at Para
No.9 that,
refusal to register a document by the Sub-Registrar
merely on the ground of failure to produce documents of
title of vendor is not sustainable under law, because, the
Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register invoking Section
22A of the Registration Act considering the title of the
vendor.
(vi) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan
Parmarthik Nyas Vrs. State of M.P. and others reported
in 2008 (II) Civ.C.C. 703 at Para No.7 that,
The Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to
register a document on the ground that, the
vendor/transferer has no title to the property in question
and is not competent to execute the sale deed. The
transferee would get the right, title and interest of the
transferee, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation.
6. Here, in this matter at hand, when in spite of production
of the R.o.R. of the case land in the name of the Petitioner in
respect of the properties covered under the deed for sale, the
Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) did not register that deed
and kept the same pending directing the Petitioner to produce
the documents i.e. original sale deed and the papers of the
Mutation Case No.2004/85 for its registration, then at this
juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P.
No.5) was not authorized under law to adjudicate the title of
the Petitioner in the properties covered under the deed for sale
in spite of all the procedural compliances with filing of the
recent R.o.R. of the land to be sold in the name of the
Petitioner on payment of necessary registration charges/fees
and presence of the Parties (vendor and vendee) before him for
the registration of that deed.
For which, the impugned order dated 19.04.2025
(Annexure-5) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5)
cannot be sustainable under law.
7. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the same through this writ petition filed by
the Petitioner.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is
allowed.
9. The impugned order dated 19.04.2025 vide Annexure-5
issued by the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) is quashed.
10. The Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P. No.5) is directed to
register the deed for sale (Annexure-4) on production of the
certified copy of this judgment and remaining present with the
vendee and witnesses before the Sub-Registrar, Khaira (O.P.
No.5) and the O.P. No.5 to act upon the same for its
registration as per the Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa
Registration Rules, 1988.
11. After registration of the deed, the Sub-Registrar, Khaira
(O.P. No.5) shall return that registered sale deed to the
Petitioner within three days complying all the rules and
formalities of Section 100 of the Orissa Registration Rules,
1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 issued by
IGR of Odisha.
12. As such, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
17th Of September, 2025/ Binayak Sahoo//
Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
