The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner had met the requirements under Sections 21 and 22 of the Registration Act, and there was no illegality in presenting the sale deed for registration.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

1. This is a writ petition at the instance of the petitioner assailing the order dated 7.11.2014 passed by the opposite party No. 3 and the order in confirmation of the same by the appellate authority vide order dated 2.12.2014 in denying registration of sale deed submitted by the petitioner. Facts involved in the writ petition is that the father of the petitioner was a recorded tenant having 7/16th interest in respect of the land under Khata No. 138, Mouza-Gangapur, Tahasil-Salipur. After death of her father, the petitioner being the sole legal heir succeeded to the property entirely. Record-of-right was published in the name of the petitioner in Mutation Case No. 2507 of 2013 indicating her share as 7/16th of the plots mentioned there under. It is submitted by the petitioner that in an attempt to clear the hand loans incurred by the petitioner for her daughter's marriage as well as meeting with the medical expenses for herself gynecological disorder wanted to sale her property. In the process, a sale deed to the extent of share belonging to the petitioner was conducted between the petitioner and one Goutam Charan Sahoo on 7.11.2014 and the same was presented for registration before opposite party No. 3. The registration of the sale deed was denied holding that the sale deed presented for registration contravenes Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter for short "the Act") inasmuch as the vendor-petitioner does not have the consent of the other recorded co-sharers of the property. Being aggrieved by such action of the registering authority, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21898 of 2014 and this Court being satisfied the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 72 of the Act, did not entertain the writ petition. Following the observation of this Court in the above writ petition, the petitioner approached the appellate authority which is ultimately dismissed by his order dated 7.12.2014. The petitioner assailed the order passed by the opposite party No. 3 as well as the order in appeal passed by the opposite party No. 2 on the premises that there was no infraction of the provision contained under Section 22-A of the Act. The opposite parties referred to hereinabove have misconstrued the mandate of Sections 21 and 22 of the Indian Registration Act read with Rule 23 and 24 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 (hereinafter for short "the Rule") requiring description of the property in the sale deed sought to be alienated. Petitioner contended that the description of the property in the sale deed as appearing is mandate of the law in the case of sale deed on the basis of a record-of-right. The description of the property contained the name of the village, khata number, plot number, classification of land and area noted in the record-of-right and the local name, if any. Petitioner contended that she had satisfied the requirements of Rules 23 and 24 of the Rule. Petitioner further contended that following provisions under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the vendor is capable of transferring of her interest in the property. In the present case, the petitioner having sold her entire share, there was no infraction of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act and both the authorities have erroneously rejected the registration of the sale deed. It is on these premises, the petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned orders vide Annexures-3 and 4 passed by opposite party Nos. 3 and 2 respectively.

2. Per contra, on their appearance, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the State Authorities referring to counter submitted that the denial of the registration is based on the premises of violation of provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act, as well as Section 21 of the Act read with Rules 24(2) and (3) of the Orissa Registration Rules framed there under. The opposite parties contended tha