Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
M/s. Eastern Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others – Respondent
WP(C) No.16105 of 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed to quash cancellation of property sale (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. opposite parties argue legality of certificate entry (Para 4) |
| 3. court analyzes legality of registration and mutation (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. writ petition is dismissed due to lack of merit (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner- company praying for quashing the entry made by the Opp. Party No.2 (Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala) in Book No.1 vide Annexure-14 and the order of Mutation vide Annexure-17 passed in respect of the properties under Khata No.87 plot No.279 (after mutation) corresponding to Khata No.10.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner-company for filing of the same is that, the petitioner company had incurred loan from several banks and financial institutions including the Opp. Party No.6. Due to non-payment of loans, a proceeding vide R.P. No.106/2006/CTC was initiated against the petitioner- company at the instance of Opp. Party No.6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT) Cuttack and on the basis of the order passed by the DRT, Cuttack in that R.C. No.106/2006/CTC, the secured properties of the petitioner- company for the loan were put to e-auction Sale and the date of such e-auction sale was fixed to 08.04.2024. In the said e- auction Sale of the secured properties of the petitioner- company, several persons including Opp. Party No.7 had participated, in which, the Opp. Party No.7 became the highest bidder and was eligible to purchase the auctioned properties. Accordingly, a Sale Certificate in respect of the auctioned properties was issued by the Opp. Party No.6 in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 on dated 09.04.2024 after receiving the money for the auctioned properties.
The petitioner being dissatisfied with the above e-auction Sale challenged to the same by filing S.A. No.44 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack.
In the said S.A. No.44 of 2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack as per order dated 06.05.2024 directed the Opp. Party No.7 not to take the possession of the said properties till next date and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- within 30 days in two installments as Rs.50,00,000/- in each and 1st installment should be on or before 05.06.2024 and 2nd Installment should be on or before 04.07.2024 and in failure of which, the said interim order shall stands vacated.
Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 1st installment, but, the Opp. Party No.7 (purchaser of e- auction Sale) filed a Writ Petition vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.12905 of 2024 in this Court praying for directing the Sub- Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) to make entry of the Sale Certificate-cum-possession issued by the Opp. Party No.6 in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 in Book No.1 of its office.
3. Subsequent thereto, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.12905 of 2024 of the Opp. Party No.7 directing the Opp. Party No.7 to move the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for entering its Sale Certificate in Book No.1 and to consider the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks on production of the said order.
When, the petitioner-company approached Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for filing the copy of its Sale Certificate in Book No.1, the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) entered that copy of the Sale Certificate in Book No.1 of its office.
On the basis of entry made in the Book No.1 by the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No.1803 of 2024 for correction of R.o.R of the properties covered under e-auction Sale Certificate, the same was rejected on dated 26.07.2024.
When, again the said Opp. Party No.7 filed another Mutation Case vide Misc. Case No.2/2024 for the said properties, the same was allowed on dated 03.09.2024 despite objec
The court affirmed that the entry of a Sale Certificate in the local registration office is a statutory requirement for record preservation, not subject to compulsory registration, thereby affirming ....
A sale certificate issued after an auction sale must be filed in Book 1 by the Sub-Registrar without refusal, as it does not require registration under the Registration Act.
The court held that a sale certificate, required to be filed in the local registration office under law, cannot be refused based on a status quo order in a related civil suit involving a non-party.
The duty of the Sub-Registrar to amend land records to reflect quashed sale certificates is affirmed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale certificates should be filed in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act without insisting on stamp duty, based on the decis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner was not liable to pay deficit stamp duty and registration fees, and the impounding of the registered sale certificate was quash....
The court mandated that sale certificates must be duly entered as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, allowing for flexibility regarding stamp duty.
The court affirmed that a sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act may be entered without stamp duty, pending decision by a Full Bench.
Sub-Registrar must register auction sale certificate despite income tax attachment, absent legal impediment.
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
