[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sabyasachi Mandal And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27339 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Sabyasachi Mandal and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, A.G.A.
For O.P. Nos.1 to 5
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
8th April 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and
Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-
Opposite Parties 1 to 5.
2. The Petitioners have prayed for a direction for registration of the
sale deed presented by their vendor on 28.07.2025 to the Sub-
Registrar, Jatni.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
3. The case of the Petitioners is that, they are the intending
purchasers of Plot No.769/2827 in Khata No.384/680 of mouza-
Uttramunda Muhana measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals. The owner of
the plot in question is namely, Jasoda Sahoo, and she is the recorded
owner of the land as per the RoR at Annexure-1. After the negotiation
was completed and the sale deed executed by Jasoda Sahoo in favour
of the Petitioners, it was presented on 28.07.2025 before the Sub-
Registrar, Jatni (Opposite Party No.5). The same was accepted on the
same day for verification and subsequently the Petitioners were
intimated that the registration of the sale deed could not be possible for
the reason that the vendor of Jasoda Sahoo has sold the same land to
Jasoda beyond the extent of land in the original plot.
4. Opposite Party No.5 has filed its counter stating that, the
vendors of Jasoda Sahoo, namely, Urmila Swain and others, who were
the original recorded owner of the corresponding Plot No.769 under
Khata No.23, have sold Plot No.769 measuring area Ac.0.500 decimals
to many persons and out of them, Jasoda Sahoo, who is the last
purchaser, has purchased the land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals.
Before selling the land to Jasoda Sahoo, her vendors had already sold
more than Ac.0.500 decimals to several other persons and therefore,
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
her vendors did not have such property left in their favour to sell it to
Jasoda. In other words, according to Opposite Party No.5, since the
vendors of Jasoda had no more land within their share to sold, such
extent of land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals sold in favour of
Jasoda Sahoo is illegal being beyond the share of her vendors. The list
of persons purchased such extent of lands from Plot No.769 from the
vendors of Jasoda Sahoo have been mentioned in the counter affidavit
at paragraph 8 to demonstrate that the total land sold is Ac.0.507
decimals, which is Ac.0.0072 decimals more than the extent of land in
Plot No.769.
5. The Petitioners have filed their rejoinder to the counter affidavit
of Opposite Party No.5 mentioning that, the name of the person as
Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe, who is stated to have purchased Ac.0.058
decimals, his purchase of land to such extent has been subsequently
cancelled and thus by counting such extent of land, Opposite Party
No.5 has committed mistake in computing the total extent of land.
According to the Petitioners, the land measuring area Ac.0.058
decimals sold to Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe has been subsequently
cancelled and therefore, such extent of land still remained with the
vendors of Jasoda Sahoo thereby validating the sale in favour of Jasoda
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
Sahoo subsequently. But Opposite Party No.5 has mentioned it
wrongly to say that the vendors of Jasoda Sahoo had no surplus land to
sale to Jasoda Sahoo.
6. Upon hearing both parties, it is found admitted that, the sale
deed executed in favour of Jasoda Sahoo was in the year 2010. Jasoda
Sahoo purchased an extent of land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals
out of Plot No.769 in Khata No.23 from Urmila Swain and others vide
Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure-10). After purchase of the land
from her vendors, Jasoda mutated the same in her favour and the RoR
in Plot No.769/2827 in Khata No.384/680 was accordingly carved in
favour of Jasoda Sahoo and the land was recorded in Kissam
Gharabari. Jasoda Sahoo was in peaceful possession of the same and
ultimately as per the direction of the Tahasildar, an enquiry was
conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Janla which was forwarded to the
Sub-Registrar through the Tahasildar stating that the land is still vacant
recorded in the name of Jasoda Sahoo, wife of Bijay Kuamr Sahoo.
From such enquiry report as well as the Record of Right prepared in
the name of Jasoda Sahoo, it is thus established that she is in peaceful
possession of the land till date of proposed sell. When the RoR stands
recorded in the name of Jasoda Sahoo and she is in possession of the
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
land in question, she executed the sale deed with present Petitioners for
due consideration amount and then sale deed was presented before
Opposite Party No.5 for registration. Therefore, when the document is
presented for registration as per the Indian Registration Act, the
authority liable for registration is to verify the requirements in terms of
the provisions of the Indian Registration Act.
7. The provisions contained in the Indian Registration Act
authorizes the Sub-Registrar to look into such aspects as to fulfil the
enquiry for registration of the document presented. Section 34, deals
with the scope of enquiry by the Registering officer before the
acceptance of document for registration. Section 35 pertains to the
procedure to be followed on admission or refusal of registration of
document. Section 34(1) provides that subject to the provisions
contained in Part-VI and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89,
no document shall be registered under the said Act, unless the persons
executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents
duly authorized, appear before the registering officer within the time
allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, subject to
such provisions. Sub-section (3) to Section 34 provides that the
Registering Officer shall, thereupon enquire whether or not such
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have
been executed and satisfy himself to the identity of the persons
appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the
document.
8. In Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham,
(2022) 8 SCC 210, Hon'ble Supreme Court have explained that,
"27. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 imposes three obligations
upon the registering officer. These obligations are:
(i) To enquire whether or not such document was executed
by the person by whom it is claimed to have been executed;
(ii) To satisfy himself as to the identity of the person
appearing before him and claiming to have executed the
document;
(iii) To satisfy himself about the right of any person
appearing as a representative, assign or agent, to so appear;
xx xx xx
30. What is covered by Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) is
something different from what is covered by Section 34(3).
While Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) speaks about the
entitlement of the person to present a document for registration,
Section 34(3) speaks about the enquiry to be conducted and the
satisfaction to be arrived at by the registering officer. Section
34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the registering officer to
satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a
representative, assign or agent. .. ..
xx xx xx
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three
essential steps among others. They are:
(i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or
affixing his left hand thumb impression;
(ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to
the registering authority the execution of such document;
and
(iii) the act of registration of the document.
xx xx xx
55. The third step, namely, the act of registration, is something
that the registering authority is called upon to do statutorily.
While the executant of the document and the person claiming
under the document (claimant) are the only actors involved in
the first two steps, the registering officer is the actor in the third
step. Apart from the third step which is wholly in the domain of
the registering authority, he may also have a role to play in the
second step when a document is presented for registration and
the execution thereof is admitted. The role that is assigned to the
Registrar in the second step is that of verification of the identity
of the person presenting the document for registration.
56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are
substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing
the role of the lead actors and the registering authority playing a
guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in
nature where the registering authority is the lead actor."
9. In the given facts of the instant case, the ownership of the land in
favour of the vendor of the Petitioners is never disputed. It is not the
case that the title of the vendor of the Petitioners is in cloud or
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
questioned by someone else. The RoR in respect of the scheduled land
depicts the name of vendor of the Petitioners as the recorded owner and
in addition to the same, the enquiry report of the Tahasildar, which is
submitted to the Sub-Registrar, clearly reveals that the land is vacant
where the vendor of the Petitioners is the owner and the Kissam of land
is Gharabari. Jasoda Sahoo, the proposed vendor of the Petitioners,
purchased the land since 2010 and subsequently converted the same in
her favour without recording any kind of dispute.
10. As stated above, the Registering Authority has no power to
verify or ascertain as to whether the executant of the document has title
to the property which is sought to be dealt with under the document
presented for registration. Any enquiry by the Registering Authority in
the matter of title of the property which is the subject matter of the
document presented for registration would be beyond the jurisdiction
and powers of such authority. The executant of the document is, in no
way, answerable to the Registering Authority relating to the title of the
property which is the subject matter of the document presented by him
for registration. Any refusal for registration of the document by the
Registering Authority on the ground of absence of title to such
property to the executant or on account of any defect in his title to such
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Apr-2026 14:29:45
property would be per se illegal act on the part of Registering
Authority. Thus, in such situation, there would not be any scope on the
part of the Sub-Registrar to object registration of the sale deed on the
ground that the vendors of vendor of the Petitioners did not have
enough land to sale in favour of Jasoda Sahoo taking recourse to sale
transactions conducted prior to 2010. Moreover, it is the specific case
of the Petitioners that, sale of land mentioned in favour of one
Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe to the extent of Ac.0.058 decimals is not a
valid one and deemed to be cancelled subsequently. If this will be
taken into account, then it amounts to an error committed on the part of
the Sub-Registrar to opine that excess land out of the extent in Plot
No.769 has been sold to Jasoda Sahoo.
11. In view of such discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the
Opposite Party No.5 is directed to accept the proposed sale deed
presented, if any, along with a certified copy of this order within a
period of forty-five days from today and shall do the needful for
registration of the same.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary
