2025 Supreme(Ori) 1048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Sabita Agrawala - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha, Represented Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management, And Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.2946 of 2025
Decided On : 04-07-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate Assisted By Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty Learned Standing Counsel
The court determined that an ADM-cum-District Registrar lacks authority to prohibit registration of plots if statutory requirements are satisfied, highlighting the administrative nature of their powers under the Registration Act.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 68 - Jurisdiction of District Registrar - Issuance of Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 to stop registration of plots without legal authority is quashed. The District Registrar lacks power to direct non-registration if statutory requirements are met. (Paras 10-14)
(B) Administrative Powers - Powers under Section 68 of the Registration Act are purely administrative and do not extend to stopping registrations. The court holds that the actions taken were contrary to the law established in previous judgments interpreting these sections. (Paras 13-14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a letter issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar prohibiting plot registrations due to alleged ownership disputes connected to a deceased individual’s estate. The petitioner sold portions of the property after legal heirs were recognized.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the letter is invalid as it contradicts legal provisions and infringes on the petitioner's rights.
Issues: Whether the ADM-cum-District Registrar had the authority to halt registrations of properties following administrative guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that under the Registration Act, the District Registrar cannot halt registrations unless specific statutory provisions permit such a refusal.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the letter is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property disputes (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties present contrasting arguments (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of legal powers under the registration act (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conclusions on legal authority of district registrar (Para 14) |
| 5. final ruling on the writ petition (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-Registrar, Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) for temporary stoppage of registration of plots and their subsequent divided plots indicated in the said letter vide Annexure-6.
2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties.
3. The RoR of Khata No.217 containing several plots indicated in Annexure-6 was published in the name of Banamali Vyas. As per orders passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975, the Tahasildar, Boudh corrected the RoR of Khata No.217 from the name of Banamali Vyas to the name of his legal heirs after the death of Banamali Vyas. The legal heirs of Banamali Vyas sold the said properties covered under Khata No.217 in Mouza-Boudhgarh to the petitioner of this writ petition on dated 09.07.2014 by executing and registering a sale deed. Thereafter, the RoR of the said properties was corrected to the name of the petitioner as per the orders passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 respectively filed by the petitioner.
Out of the properties under Khata No.217, the petitioner alienated Ac.10.000 decimal to her different purchasers through different sale deeds and the said purchasers of the petitioner have already mutated their purchased properties to their names through different mutation cases.
4. Thereafter, the Additional Tahasildar, Bouth filed an appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub-collector, Boudh(Opposite Party No.3) challenging the orders for mutation of the properties under Khata No.217 passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 respectively in favour of the petitioner along with her purchasers on the basis of orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in OLR Revision Case No.24 of 1994 in setting aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh in OLR Case No.830 of 1975.
As, in the said Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub- collector, Bouth, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party, for which, the petitioner filed an application under Order-1, Rule-10 of the C.P.C. on dated 22.06.2024 in that Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 for her impleadment as a party, which is pending for consideration.
5. While, the matters had stood thus, she(petitioner) came to know that, the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) has issued Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) directing him(Opposite Party No.4) to stop registration of plots covered under Khata No.217 and subsequent divided plots thereof until further order to avoid any dispute in future as per request letter dated 03.12.2024 of the Tahasildar, Boudh indicating therein that,
“The Tahasildar, Boudh has intimated him that, properties indicated in that Annexure-6 containing eight plots covered under Khata No.217 in Mouza-Boudhgarh primarily belongs to the Ceiling surplus land of Sri Navin Prasad Dev, but, the same were mutated as per order passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975 in favour of Smt. Suman Joshi and five others misinterpreting to the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.6970 of 2008. In this connection, Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 has been initiated before the Sub-collector, Boudh. Further, it has be