IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Sachhi Malik and others - Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, Cuttack & Others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No.32325 of 2025
Decided On : 24-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1.This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the order of refusal of registration to the deed for sale of the Petitioners passed on dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) and to direct the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-3) of the Petitioners.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the Petitioners for filing of the same is that, the land in question was settled by the Government in favour of Kulamani Malik (who was the common ancestor of the petitioners) through lease case land on the basis of such settlement through lease case, the R.o.R. of the same was prepared under Khata No.570/62 in the name of Kulamani Malik. The said Kulamani Malik died leaving behind the petitioners as his successors. For which, the land covered under Khata No.570/62 devolved upon the petitioners and since then, the petitioners are in peaceful possession over the same. Thereafter, due to some legal necessities, the petitioners wanted to sale that land to O.P. No.4 (Abhimanyu Sethi), to which, the O.P. No.4 agreed to purchase. So, a deed for sale in respect of the said land under Khata No.570/62 was executed by the petitioners in favour of the O.P. No.4 and the said deed was presented on dated 13.08.2025 before the Sub-Registrart, Athgarh (O.P. No.3) for registration.
The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) without registering the said deed for sale (original of Annexure-3), he (O.P. No.3) deferred its registration and sought for a clarification from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2), whether the said deed for sale (Original of Annexure-3) is registrable or not.
After receiving the reply from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) through letter No.646/2025 (DSR) dated 09.04.2025, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-4) and refused to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-3) of the Petitioners assigning the reasons that, “The A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack has clarified vide letter No.646/2025 (DSR), dt.09.04.2025 that,
“The Orissa Government Land Settlement Rule, 1983 and other relevant Acts and notifications, generally restricts the transfer of leasehold land. The lease is typically granted for specific purpose, such as homestead or agriculture and the land cannot be used for any other purpose without permission and guided by the terms of lease agreement. The land should not be transferred when it holds the leasehold status.”
3. On being dissatisfied with the above order of refusal of registration passed on dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3), the Petitioners challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the said order of refusal of registration passed on dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) and to direct the O.P. No.3 to register the deed for sale (Original of Annexure-3).
4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3.
5. Undisputedly, the property covered under the deed for sale vide Khata No.570/62 is under Stitiban status and the Petitioners have been paying rent for the same to the Government regularly and the Government has been receiving the rents of the same from the petitioners and providing rent receipts.
6. The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) has refused to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-3) executed by the petitioners in respect of the land covered under Khata No.570/62 in favour of the O.P. No.4 on the basis of the letter No.646/2025 (DSR) d
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.
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.
A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of a deed based on questions of title or procedural delays in payment of stamp duty, as these are outside their jurisdiction.
The Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a sale deed based on title disputes; procedural compliance is sufficient for registration under the Registration Act.
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....
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 Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.
The Sub-Registrar's powers to refuse registration are limited to specific grounds outlined in the Registration Act, and any refusal based on arbitrary reasons or external pressures is unlawful.
The Sub-Registrar must register deeds without oral refusals unless legal defects exist; title disputes are to be handled by civil courts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.