Registering Authority lacks jurisdiction to refuse registration based on the merits or legal effects of documents, operating in an administrative capacity only.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside an order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-3) passed in Refusal Order/Case No.01 of 2025 by the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.4) and to direct the said opposite party No.4 to register the deed of acknowledgement of adoption (which was presented by the petitioner before opposite party No.4 for registration and which has been returned back to the petitioner refusing its registration).

2. The case of the petitioner is that, after proper execution of a deed of acknowledgment of adoption on required stamp papers with signatures of donor, donees, witnesses and identifier on dated 29.01.2025, the same was presented before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (opposite party No.4) for its registration, but the opposite party No.4 refused to register the same on that day i.e. on 29.01.2025 and thereafter, the said opposite party No.4 as per Order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-3) passed an order in Refusal Order/Case No.01 of 2025 under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 refusing to register that deed and returned back the same to the petitioner assigning the reasons that:-

“an adoption arises out of a lawful contract between the biological parents and adopting parents in as much as the child under adoption can be a necessary party to such contract only after attaining the age of 18 years. Hence, in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the fact of valid adoption taking place inter alia before the child attaining the age of 18 years, it is incumbent upon both the parents to execute an instrument of “adoption” or “acknowledgment to adoption” by paying the proper stamp duty on it for the purpose of evidence. But, the parents preferring to wait further even after the adopted child attains majority and without any prior effort whatsoever to create valid documents including an instrument to that effect for the purpose of evidence, is a clear breach of contract finalized between them for creating the necessary evidence for the purpose of proving the valid adoption. So, after the adopted child has become major and attained the age of 27 years, the execution of the parents to the instrument of adoption is nothing but the breach of the prior contract and contravenes Section 11 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. As such, the executants in the instant instrument cannot be treated to be the lawful and purported executants under Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act. So in view of (3) of the Registration Act, the document is refused under Section 71 of the Registration Act.”

3. On being aggrieved with the above Order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure-3) passed by the opposite party No.4 in Refusal Order/Case No.01 of 2025, he (petitioner) challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing (setting aside) the same and to direct opposite party No.4 to register that deed on the ground that, the order passed by the opposite party No.4 under Annexure-3 is illegal and contrary to the law. Because, the opposite party No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction under law to refuse the registration of the deed in question on the grounds enumerated in Section 34 (3) of the Registration Act, 1908, as (3) of the Registration Act, 1908 does not empower any Registering Authority like the opposite party No.4 to refuse the registration of any deed expressing opinion on the merits and legal effect of the said deed in question.

4. I have already heard fr