The Court ruled that properties not under attachment cannot be refused registration of sale deeds based on anticipation of future actions; thus, registration must proceed as long as no attachment exists.

ORDER :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 10^th April, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed by the Sub- Registrar, Ganjam refusing to register the sale deeds in respect of the properties more-fully described in the sale deeds under Annexures-2 Series.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned counsel that the Petitioner intending to alienate certain immovable properties presented duly executed sale deeds under Annexure-2 series in respect of the land, viz. Plot No.676 under Khata No.864/402, Plot No.1529/2072 under Khata No. 864/401, Plot No. 677 under Khata No.864/402, Plot No.518 under Khata No.864/401, Plot No.676 under Khata No.864/402, Plot No.520 under Khata No.864/402, Plot No.678/2071 under Khata No.864/401, Plot No.520 under Khata No.864/402 and Plot No.519 under Khata No.864/402 in mouza Rambha Estate under Khalikote Tahasil in the district of Ganjam (for brevity, ‘the case land’) before the Sub-Registrar, Ganjam-Opposite Party No.1 for registration. The Registering Officer upon receipt of the instruments sought for clarification from the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Cuttack vide Letter No. 87/Regn. Dated 29^th February, 2024 as to whether the case land has been attached under the provisions of Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (for brevity, ‘the OPID Act’) or there exists any restraint order for sale of those immovable properties by any competent Court or not. The clarification sought for is yet to be received. It is alleged that the Competent Authority has requested the Superintendent of Police, EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to examine and provide necessary clarification to the Registering Officer in respect of the case land. When the matter stood thus, the impugned order Annexure-1 was passed.

3.1 Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being the owner in possession of the case land presented five sale deeds (Annexure-2 series) before the Sub- Registrar, Ganjam-Opposite Party No.1. When the clarifications as stated above were awaited, he refused to register the sale deeds.

3.2 It is further submitted by Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the case land are not the subject matter of any proceeding under the OPID Act and no order of attachment in respect of those properties has yet been passed.

4. Taking into consideration the case of the Petitioner, this Court vide order dated 2^nd July, 2024 directed Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Competent Authority under the OPID Act to take instruction in the matter. On instruction, an affidavit has been filed by the Competent Authority under the OPID Act stating that the case land are not under attachment. However, in the event the sale proceeds of the attached properties of the Petitioner fall short to make good the amount required to be refunded to the depositors, then the competent Court may exercise power under Section 10 of the OPID Act to attach and sale the case land.

5. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that since the properties are not under attachment and there is no restraint order from any competent Court of law as yet to sale the aforesaid properties, the Registering Officer could not have refused to register the sale deeds presented by the Petitioner in respect of the case land. A refusal order to register the sale deed in respect of the case land cannot be passed on anticipation which is far-fetched. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 should be set aside and the Sub-Registrar, Ganjam may be directed to