Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 855

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Rajendra Kumar Biswal - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others – Respondent
WP(C) No.16698 of 2025
Decided On : 24-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Satyanarayan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. G.Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

Sub-Registrar must accept deeds for registration; statutory rights of landowners to alienate property prevail over executive instructions.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 71; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Refusal of registration of a deed for sale - Sub-Registrar's oral refusal deemed illegal as he must receive documents for consideration - Landowners have an inherent right to alienate property, including part plots. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Statutory Rights - Statutory provisions prevail over executive instructions; any order without authority is non-est. The conduct of the Sub-Registrar in refusing the deed lacks legal basis due to ongoing Boundary Change Proceedings. (Paras 7, 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested registration of a sale deed, which was refused by the Sub-Registrar based on ongoing boundary proceedings and restrictions related to part plots.

Findings of Court:
The oral refusal of the Sub-Registrar was held illegal, affirming the absolute right to alienate property according to statutory provisions.

Issues: The legality of the Sub-Registrar's refusal based on boundary change proceedings and the statutory rights of landowners regarding property sale.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that registration cannot be arbitrarily denied by the Sub-Registrar and that statutory provisions dictate the terms of property registration.

Result: Writ petition allowed; Sub-Registrar directed to register the deed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for deed registration. (Para 1)
2. state's refusal basis on ongoing proceedings. (Para 2 , 3)
3. sub-registrar's duty to accept documents. (Para 4 , 5)
4. owners' rights to alienate their property. (Para 6 , 8)
5. court's directive for deed registration. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

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 praying for directing Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale of the Petitioner for registration. Because, on dated 03.03.2025, the Petitioner had presented the deed for sale (Original or Annexure-1) before the O.P. No.3 for its registration, but, the Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar (O.P. No.3) refused to receive the same stating that, he (O.P. No.3) cannot receive any deed for sale for registration in respect of transfer of part plot.

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned standing counsel for the State submitted on the basis of the counter affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties that, in fact, the Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar (O.P. No.3) is not allowing the registration of any deed for sale in respect of the properties of Mouza Gaudabisinuapada along with other villages in respect of which villages Boundary Change Proceeding Case i.e. BCP Case under Rule 61 the OSS Rules, 1962 is going on and in addition to that, on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Collector, Bhadrak, the registration of sale deed in respect of part plot has been stopped.

4. The law concerning the non-acceptance of deed for sale, when any land owner being vendor presents a deed for registration like the Petitioner in this writ petition 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 presented for registration, but after receiving, he/she will consider, whether the same is legally fit for registration or not. Because, Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that, the Sub-Registrar is to receive a document, which is presented for registration and if the same is fit for registration, he/she shall register that deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof. If the same 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.”

5. So, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the oral refusal of the Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale of the Petitioner on dated 03.03.2025 is not inconformity with law. For which, the said conduct of the Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar (O.P. No.3) i.e. refusing to receive the deed of the Petitioner is not legal.

6. So far as, the alienation of any part plot by any land owner like the Petitioner is concerned;

alienation of the property is the inherent right of every land owner. Owner of any plot has his inherent right either to sell full plot or part thereof according to his necessity. Because, The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as well as The Constitution of India, 1950 provides absolute right to every land owner to use his land including his right to sell as per his sweet will without affecting the rights of others in any manner. The Sub-Registrar or any Officer of the State cannot curtail the absolute right of alienation of the property of the land owner through any Notification or the Government. Likewise, the statutory right of registration of the sale deeds of the land owners provided under the Registration Act, 1908 cannot be stopped by any letter of the Government or Government Officials issui