ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.12113 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Dhirendra Kumar Panda

… Petitioner

-VERSUS-

I.G.R. Odisha, Cuttack & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the Parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Kanungo, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 04.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 04.09.2025

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 Petitioner praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to complete the process of registration of the deed for sale i.e. original of Annexure-1, to which, the O.P. No.3 has retained with him in his office since 01.10.2024 refusing orally to complete the registration thereof stating that, the vendors of the Petitioner cannot sell the properties covered under that deed for sale without the consent of their co-sharers, as the properties covered under the said deed have been recorded jointly in the name of the vendors of the Petitioner and their co-sharers.

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

3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar is either to register the document after receiving it or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if for any reason under law, the said deed 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 same is not fit for registration as per law, the Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 for its non-registration, but, the Sub-Registrar cannot retain the same with him without intimating in writing to the Petitioner about its non-

registration.

4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the decisions 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 any document presented for registration, but after receiving, he/she will consider, whether the same is fit for registration or not, because, Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that, the Sub-Registrar is to receive a document, which is presented for registration and if the same is fit for registration, he/she shall register that deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof and if the same is not fit for registration, he/she shall pass an order of refusal of registration in writing as per Section 71 of the Registration Act.”

5. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right/power to a co-sharer of a joint property like the vendors of the Petitioner to transfer/alienate their undivided shares in the joint property without the consent of their co-sharer or co-sharers and Sub-Registrar has no power to retain the said deed with him, even if, the said deed is executed by the vendors without the consent of their co-sharers.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C)

No.4340 of 2025

6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions and also taking the Rule 147 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 into account, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to act upon the deed for sale of the vendors of the Petitioner (which was presented by the vendors of th