ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
Himanshu Nayak – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
WP(C) No. 16117 of 2025
Decided On : 25-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for deed registration (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. hearing with opposing counsel occurs (Para 6) |
| 3. analysis of first ground for refusal (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. analysis of second and third grounds for refusal (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; registration directive issued (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.
1. 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 directing the District Sub-Registrar, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.3) to register the deed for sale vide Annexure-5, which was refused to register by the O.P. No.3 assigning three grounds in Annexure-6.
2. The said three grounds/reasons assigned by the O.P. No.3 for non-registration of the deed for sale (Annexure-5) in Annexure-6 are as follows:-
(i) When, Himanshu Nayak as a registered power of attorney holder of the vendor is executing the deed for sale, but, he (power of attorney holder) has not satisfied that, his principal had not any intention to revoke such power.
(ii) As per the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 a Trust property can be sold, only if the sale proceeds is required for the Trust and the same shall be used only for the benefit of the trust and the same can only be done when there is clear cut provision in the bye-law of the Trust and the Board of Director of the trust shall pass resolution unanimously for sell of such property. If, there is no unanimity and if there is any legal ambiguity as to the functioning of the Board of Directors without resolving such issue in Court of Law, the resolution cannot be passed for sale of such property.
(iii) When, the property of a public charitable Trust is to be sold, the concurrence of the State Government is required as per Section 57(A) and 57(B) of the OLR Act, 1960, wherein, the collector of the District is the permanent member in representing the State Government in the Board of Director of the Trust, without whose concurrence a resolution cannot be treated as valid for its operation to sell the property of the Trust.
3. The case of the Petitioner in this writ petition is that, Believers Church India is the owner of the properties covered under the deed for sale vide Annexure-5. The consolidation R.o.R. of the properties covered under the said deed for sale (Annexure- 5) stands in the name of the Believers Church India Marfat Managing Trust Bishop Dr.Samuel Mathew. The Believers Church India is a private trust and the same has been registered as per The Trust Act vide Annexure-3.
As per the resolution dated 18.03.2022 (Annexure-4), in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Believers Church India trust, it was decided for selling of the properties of the trust covered under the deed for sale (Annexure-5) through its Power of Attorney Holder i.e. the Petitioner (Himanshu Nayak).
4. On the basis of such resolution vide Annexure-4, a special Power of Attorney was executed and registered by the Believers Church India through its Managing trust Bishop Dr.Samuel Mathew in favour of the Petitioner vide registered Power of Attorney No.107 dated 19.03.2022 (Annexure-1) authorizing the Petitioner (Himanshu Nayak) to sell the properties of the Believers Church India in Mouja Nuagaon on behalf of the Believers Church India.
Thereafter, the Believers Church India executed the deed for sale of the properties vide Plots Nos.1279 and 1280 under Khata Nos.58/4 and 528/64 in Mouja Nuagaon through its registered Power of Attorney Holder i.e. the Petitioner Himanshu Nayak in favour of the O.P. Nos.4 to 9 and presented that deed for sale (Annexure-5) before the District Sub-Registrar, Jagatsinghpur (O.P. No.3) for its registration, but, the O.P. No.3 refused to register that deed for sale assigning three grounds as indicated above in Annexure-6 and communicated the same to the Petitioner through letter No.3007 dated 15.07.2024.
5. On being
Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt. Udaipur Vrs. Balwant Singh and others
AI
A registered power of attorney holder has the authority to register a deed for sale, and trusts can sell property without court or government approval if permitted by the trust deed.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
A registered power of attorney holder can present a deed for registration without the principal's presence, as the Registration Act mandates registration when properly executed.
A Sub-Registrar has the independent authority to decide the registrability of deeds, and cannot refuse registration based on a District Registrar's clarification regarding leasehold status.
The registering authority must register a deed if all legal requirements are met, regardless of third-party objections regarding title, reaffirming the administrative role of the registration process....
The Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a sale deed based on title disputes; procedural compliance is sufficient for registration under the Registration Act.
A Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of a deed based on questions of title or procedural delays in payment of stamp duty, as these are outside their jurisdiction.
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.