Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Jajati Keshari Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 26247 of 2023
Decided On : 14-11-2023
REGISTRATION - WITHHOLDING OF REGISTERED DOCUMENT - Registration Act, 1908: Sections 52, 61, 80A; Orissa Registration Rules, 1988: Rule 100 - The court interpreted Sections 52 and 61 of the Registration Act, emphasizing the obligation of the registering officer to promptly return registered documents. It concluded that the officer cannot withhold documents post-registration for any reason, including pending civil suits, unless specific legal provisions allow it. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, as the registration process was deemed incomplete at the time of the refusal order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a residential property, executed a sale deed and presented it for registration. After registration, the District Sub-Registrar withheld the document citing a pending civil suit regarding the property, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition for its release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registration process was not completed by the time the refusal order was issued. It held that the registering officer acted within his jurisdiction and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 72 of the Registration Act to challenge the refusal.
Issues: Whether the registering officer has the authority to withhold a registered document after the registration process is complete, and whether the petitioner has an adequate remedy under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the registering officer must return registered documents promptly and cannot withhold them based on external factors such as pending litigation unless explicitly allowed by law. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the court's jurisdiction in cases of jurisdictional challenges.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, with the court affirming that the petitioner could appeal the refusal under Section 72 of the Registration Act.
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4, more particularly, to the District Sub- Registrar, Balasore-Opposite Party No.4 to release the Registered Sale Deed presented by the Petitioner on 7th July, 2023.
3. Mr. Barik, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner in possession over Plot No. 544/1735 under Khata No. 574/84 measuring an area of 2400 sq.fts with a residential house standing thereon situated in Mouza Malikashpur in the district of Balasore (for brevity 'the case land). Due to his legal necessity, he executed a sale deed in respect of the case land in favour of one Anadi Charan Pati and presented it for registration before Opposite Party No.4 on 7th July, 2023. The document was not released to the authorized person after registration. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that after registration of the document, the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore-Opposite Party No.4 has no authority to withhold the document with him. Materials on record clearly disclose that the document has already been registered, as receipt under Section 52 (b) (Annexure-1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act') and e-registration ID number (Annexure-2) were issued to the Petitioner on 7th July, 2023, which disclose that the entire process of registration was over on 7th July, 2023. The Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 filed counter affidavit annexing an order dated 11th July, 2023 (Annexure-C/4), which discloses that the registration of the sale deed was refused. The said order was never communicated either to the Petitioner or to the intended purchaser. It appears that the registration was refused on the ground that a civil suit is pending in respect of the said property and an order of status quo is continuing. The day on which the document was presented for registration, no interim order was passed by any Court of law. But, on 10th July, 2023 (Annexure- B/4), an order of status quo has been passed in respect of the suit property. When the process of registration was already over on 7th July, 2023, there was no occasion on the part of the Opposite Party No.4 to pass an order on 11th July, 2023 that too withholding the document for four days.
5. Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the decision in the case of M/s. Kukumina Constructions (P) Ltd. -v- Sub-Registrar-cum-Stamp Collector, Khurda and others, reported in 2010 (II) OLR 19, wherein at Paragraphs-6 and 7, it is held as under:
'6. The first question relates to the preliminary objection raised by O.P. No.1 regarding availability of alternative remedy. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the registering officer in withholding the original sale deed No.2814 of 2007 after its registration and to quash Annexure-3 dated 06.02.2008 by which the registering officer directed the petitioner to deposit the deficit amount towards stamp duty and registration fee as calculated by him or else to contest the matter to be referred to the next higher forum. The argument of the petitioner is that no power is vested in the registering officer to withhold the sale deed after its registration is completed. The further contention of the petitioner is that the order passed under Annexure-3 is without jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be quashed. According to the petitioner, there is no such provision either under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 or the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 that empowers the registering officer to issue such notice as under Annexure-3 and to withhold the sale deed after completion of registration. Thus, in the present writ petition, the jurisdiction of the registering officer is under challenge. In course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the opp. parties has n
The registering officer has no authority to withhold a registered document after the completion of the registration process, and any refusal must be based on clear legal grounds.
The registering authority must register a deed if all legal requirements are met, regardless of third-party objections regarding title, reaffirming the administrative role of the registration process....
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
The Registrar's decision under the Registration Act is summary in nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar's jurisdiction is narrower compared to the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court....
The registration of a sale deed is deemed complete when necessary endorsements are made under the Indian Registration Act, obliging the registering officer to promptly return the deed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration procedure mandated under the Registration Act was followed by the 2nd respondent, and the court emphasized the importance of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
