Orissa High Court
Bidesi Naik @ Bideshi Naik vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9742 of 2025
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Bidesi Naik @ Bideshi Naik .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Arjuna Charan Behera,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties- Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel.
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 3 & 5)
Mr. P. S. Nayak,
Advocate.
Mr. R. Behera,
Advocate.
(for O.P. No.4)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :21.08.2025 :: 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 (setting aside) the order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-3 Series)
passed in Registration Appeal No.1 of 2024 by the District Registrar-
cum-A.D.M., Subarnapur (Opposite Party No.3) and the order i.e.
Annexure-2 Series passed by the Sub-Registrar, Rampur (O.P. No.5)
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 presented a deed for
sale (originals of Annexure-3 Series) before the Sub-Registrar, Rampur
(O.P. No.5) for registration in order to transfer (sale) Ac.0.110 decimals
out of Ac.1.580 decimals of land from Plot No.760 under Khata No.262
in Mouza Baidupali under Dunguripali P.S. in the District of Subarnapur.
But, O.P. No.5 refused to register the same on dated 19.11.2024 assinging
the reasons that,
"the seller has produced the document for an area of
A0.110 decimals. On verification of Encumbrance
Certificate, it is found that, the seller has already sold an
area A0.507 decimals out of Plot No.760 in 7 Nos of deed.
The seller has already sold more than 500 square meters
out of plot No.760. Hence, the present documents for sell
will attract provision ORERA Act. The seller could not
produce any documents regarding non violation of
ORERA Act.
Hence, the document produce for registration is
hereby refused."
On being dissatisfied with the said order dated 19.11.2024 passed
by the Sub-Registrar, Rampur (O.P. No.5), the petitioner challenged the
same preferring an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908
vide Registration Appeal No.1 of 2024 before the District Registrar-cum-
A.D.M., Subarnapur.
Page 2 of 6
As per final order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Registration Appeal
No.1 of 2024, the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M. Subarnapur (O.P. No.3)
confirmed the order of refusal of registration passed by the Sub-Registrar,
Rampur (O.P. No.5) assigning the reasons as follows:-
"The total area of Plot No.760 is Ac.1.850. An area of
Ac.0.507 decimals has already been sold out in seven
documents. It exceeds more than 500 Sq. mtrs. For which, I
don't find reason to set aside the refusal made by the Sub-
Registrar in registering the sell.
Therefore, the action of the Sub-Registrar, Rampur
(O.P. No.5) in refusing for registration of the deed is upheld."
On being aggrieved with the above final order dated 28.02.2025
passed by the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M., Subarnapur (O.P. No.3) in
Registration Appeal No.1 of 2024 confirming the order of refusal of
registration passed by the Sub-Registrar, Rampur (O.P. No.5), the
petitioner challenged the same filing this writ petition under Articles 226
& 227 under Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the said
order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-3 Series) as well as the order dated
19.11.2024
(Annexure-2 Series) passed by the Sub-Registrar, Rampur
(O.P. No.5).
3. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned SC for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3 & 5) and learned counsel for
O.P. No.4.
4. The meaning of real estate project has been clarified in Section 2
(zn) of The Real Estate (Registration & Development) Act, 2016.
Wherein it has been clarified that,
"real estate project means, the development of a building or a
building consisting of apartments, or converting an existing
building or a part thereof into apartments, or the development
of land into plots or apartments, as the case may be, for the
purpose of selling all or some of the said apartments or plots
or building, as the case may be, and includes the common
areas, the development works, all improvements and structures
thereon, and all easement, rights and appurtenances belonging
thereto;"
5. The T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right to every land owner like
the petitioner for alienation/transfer of his/her property.
The said inherent right of alienation of the property of a land owner
like the petitioner cannot be prohibited/restrained/refused on the
anticipation of conversion of the sold land to a real estate project in
future.
As per law, right of alienation of property of the petitioner can
never be stalled on the basis of probability of the use of the sold land in
future as a real estate project.
It is settled propositions of law that, any decision either judicial or
administrative cannot be based on conjectures or guess work.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision:-
In a case between State of Uttarakhand and another Vrs.
Ravi Kumar (deceased) through legal representatives and
others reported in (2023) 18 SCC 281 that, any decision
now cannot be based on conjecture and surmises or on the
basis of mere guesswork. (Para 67)
6. When the impugned orders dated 19.11.2024 and 28.02.2025 vide
Annexure-2 & 3 Series, as stated above for the refusal of registration of
the deed for sale of the petitioner have been passed by the O.P. Nos.5 & 3
respectively on the basis of surmises and conjectures without stating
about the existence of any real estate project or the present use of the land
for sale as real estate project only apprehending the possibility of its
coming within the purview of ORERA in future cannot be sustainable
under law in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court
in the ratio of the aforesaid decision.
For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned orders through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The same must succeed.
7. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
The impugned orders passed by the O.P. Nos.5 & 3 vide
Annexure-2 Series and 3 Series are quashed (set aside).
The Sub-Registrar, Rampur (O.P. No.5) is directed to act upon the
deed for sale as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Orissa Registration
Rule, 1988 on the very same day of the production of the certified copy
of this judgment by the petitioner before him being present with his
vendee and the witnesses.
If the said deed is registered, then, after registration of the same,
the Sub-Registrar, Rampur (O.P. No.5) shall return that sale deed to the
petitioner 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.
8. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
17.09.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Sep-2025 17:55:17
