A police officer cannot prevent the registration of property transactions without a competent court's order, as such actions violate constitutional protections against arbitrary deprivation of property.

ORDER :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioners in this writ petition seek for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Khalikot-Opposite Party No.1 to register the sale deeds as per Annexure-6 series by declaring the letter dated 26^th May, 2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, EOW, CID CB, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to the Inspector General of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack.

3. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner- company had accepted investments and deposits from the investors and depositors, but it could not act upon the promise made to them. Accordingly, proceeding under the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was initiated and some of the properties of the Petitioner-company have been attached. Criminal proceedings are also pending against the Petitioner-company. At that juncture, the Petitioner-company presented the sale deeds under Annexure-6 series for registration. The Sub-Registrar, Khalikote-Opposite Party No.1 relying upon the instruction issued under Annexure-2 is not registering the documents. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

3.1. It is his submission that no proceeding under Section 3 of the Act has been initiated in respect of the properties for which sale deeds under Annexure-6 series were presented. It is also submitted that there is no direction of the competent court of law for attachment/sale of those properties under the provision of the Act or there is no restraint order for sale of those properties. Hence, there is no legal impediment to register those documents. It is only on the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, EOW, the Sub-Registrar is not registering the documents. In support of his case, Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the case of M/s. HI-TECH Estates and Promoters (P) Ltd. –v- State of Odisha and others, reported in 2017 (I) ILR-CUT 83, wherein it is held as under:

“9. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no personal shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Deprivation of property comes in various ways, such as destruction or confiscation or revocation of a proprietary right granted by the proprietor, seizure of goods and immovable property from the possession of individual or assumption of control of a business, in exercise of the police power of a State. Under the Constitution, the Executive cannot deprive a person of his property (any kind) without specific legal authority which can be established in a court of law, however, laudable the motive behind may be such deprivation. The expression of authority of law means by or under any law made by the competent legislature. Admittedly, in the present case, no seizure has been affected under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. The Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., CBI, Crime Branch has issued a notice to the Sub-Registrar, Jatni for prohibiting him from registering any sale executed by the petitioners or its Directors. Writing of such a letter is not by authority of law. It was open for the Investigating Agency, prosecuting or the executing agency to proceed under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 or the provisions of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Finance Establishments) Act, 2011.

So, instead of taking appropriate action against the petitioners, as the authority of law, they have simply issued a letter to the registering authority, which accordingly to this Court, is not sustainable.

10. In the result, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that Annexues-4 of both the writ petitions cannot be upheld by this Court a