Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Kamal Lochan Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 23934 of 2025
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : P.K. Rath, S. Rath
For the Respondent: Gyanalok Mohanty

The court held that a property owner’s right to alienate property cannot be denied based on future conjectures regarding land use, and the Sub-Registrar must receive documents for registration under the Registration Act.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 & 227 - Registration Act, 1908 - Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 - The refusal of the District Sub-Registrar to register gift deeds and sale deeds based on the size of the properties is illegal as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, which mandates that documents presented must be received for registration unless legally unfit. The inherent right of property owners to alienate their property cannot be hindered by anticipatory rules concerning future land use or by conjectures. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10)

Findings of Court:
The oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar is inconsistent with established law and the statutory provisions, and the petitioner has the right to transfer property without arbitrary denial of registration.

Issues: Whether the oral refusal to register the deeds and the applicability of Rule 14 impede the registration process?

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutorily recognized rights of property owners cannot be infringed by anticipatory measures or conjectures, reaffirming proper compliance with registration laws.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for registration of deeds. (Para 1)
2. refusal to register deeds not legally justified. (Para 3 , 8 , 9)
3. inherent right to alienate property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. writ petition allowed with direction to register deeds. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Registering Authority i.e. the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) through issuance of a writ of mandamus to receive the gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) executed by the petitioner for registration, because the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) orally refused to receive the said gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) for registration expressing that, the properties covered under the said gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) in each for transfer of the properties to the donees and vendee thereof are more than 500 sq. meters, for which, the registration of the said gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) are not permissible according to the Rule 14 of The Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 without prior approval of the Competent Authority thereof.

For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) and to register the same, because, Rule 14 of The Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 cannot create any impediment under law for the registration of the said deeds, as the provisions of Rule 14 of the Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 are not applicable to the deeds of the petitioner i.e. the originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4 in order to prevent the same from registration.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State (O.P. Nos.1 to 3).

3. So far as the oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the gift deeds and sale deed (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is concerned;

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) that, “the Sub Registrar/Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document from any party, when the same is presented for registration, but after receiving the same, he/she will consider, whether the said document is legally fit for registration or not. Because, Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that, the Sub-Registrar shall receive the document, which is presented before him/her for registration and if the said document is fit for registration, he/she shall register that deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof. If the said document is not compliance with the provisions of law, he/she shall pass an order of refusal of registration in writing as indicated in Section 71 of the Registration Act.”

So in view of the clarifications made in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the oral refusal of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is not inconformity with law.

For which, the said conduct of the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) i.e. refusal to receive the deeds (originals of Annexure-2, 3 & 4) of the petitioner for registration is held as illegal.

4. So far as the grounds assigned by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (O.P. No.3) i.e. applicability of Rule-14 of Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Buil