ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.34622 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ***

Brundaban Panda & Others … Petitioners.

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others … Opposite Parties Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners : Mr. S.P. Barik, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 12.12.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 12.12.2025

JUDGMENT

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1.

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Hatadihi (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioners for registration, because, the Sub-Registrar, Hatadihi (O.P. No.3) orally refused to receive the deed for sale of the petitioners for registration. For which, without getting any way, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

2. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document/deed, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document/deed or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons in writing for the non-registration of the same, if that document is not legally fit for registration.

According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but, if the said document is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same.

4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a decision between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C. 220 (Andhra Pradesh) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025 decided on 11.07.2025 that, “The Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive a document which is presented for registration and process the same.

5. When it is the settled propositions of law that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any deed for sale if presented before him/her for registration but after receiving the same, he/she is to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and when it has been alleged by the petitioners that, the Sub-Registrar, Hatadihi (O.P. No.3) orally refused to receive the deed for sale of the petitioners and when the petitioners have not annexed the draft copy of the sale deed with the writ petition, then, at this juncture, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing the Sub-Registrar, Hatadihi (O.P. No.3) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioners, if the same is presented by the petitioners annexing the certified copy of this Judgment before the Opp. Party No.3 and to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988.

6. Therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.

The Sub-Registrar, Hatadihi (O.P. No.3) is directed to receive the deed for sale, if presented by the petitioners before the Opp. Party No.3 for registration and to Act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988.

7. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally.

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 12 .12. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Locat