ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WP(C) No.26025 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India. ***

Sadashiba Mohanty

… Petitioner

-VERSUS-

State of Odisha & Others

… Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sarangi, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.Nayak, ASC.

P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

Date of Hearing : 20.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 20.09.2025

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, Panposh (O.P. No.2) in the district of Rourkela to accept the deed of sale of the petitioner for registration, because, the Sub-Registrar, Panposh (O.P. No.2) orally refused to receive that deed for sale for registration expressing that, the co-sharers of the petitioner in the properties to be sold through the deed for sale have not been signed and given their consent for sale.

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

3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar, Panposh (O.P. No.2) cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, 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. Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right/power to co-sharer of a joint property like the petitioner to transfer/alienate his undivided share in his joint property without the consent of his other co-sharer or co-sharers and the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the sale deed, if presented for registration by co- sharer like the petitioner in this matter at hand, even if, the said deed for sale is executed without the consent and signatures of his other co-sharers as vendors with the petitioner.

The land owner has his inherent right as per Section

44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 to alienate his interest in the joint and undivided properties. Any instruction or circular issued by the Government cannot prohibit the land owner (who is the matter of his land) from alienating his share and interest therein without the consent and signature of their co-owners (co-sharers). Because, any circular or notification of the Government contrary to the statutory provisions cannot nullify the statutory rights of the land owner to alienate/transfer his undivided interest.

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 wherein it has been held that, As per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, co-sharers/co-

owners have their inherent right to alienate their shares/interests in the Joint and Undivided properties to the extent of their share. Therefore, even there will be any sale of specific portion of