IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.27608 of 2025

(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

1950)

Jagannath Sahu …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Petitioner - Mr. S.K. Jethy,

Advocate.

For Opposite Parties- Mr. G. Mohanty,

Learned Sanding Counsel

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :14.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.10.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Sub- Registrar, Berhampur-I (Opposite Party No.5) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner for registration and to quash the report of the District Level Valuation Committee, Ganjam(in short the “DVLC, Ganjam”) for the year 2024-2026(Annexure-1 series), because, the Sub-Registrar, Berhampur-I

(Opposite Party No.5) orally refused to receive his deed for sale stating that, he(petitioner) has not provided the stamp duties as per the report of the DVLC, Ganjam for the year 2024-2026 in the said deed.

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrars like Opposite Party No.5(Sub-Registrar, Berhampur-I) 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 such refusal.

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 vrs. 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. Therefore, the oral refusal of the Sub-Registrar, Berhampur-I (Opposite Party No.5) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner for registration cannot be held legal in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision.

6. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the report of the DLVC, Ganjam for the year 2024-2026(Annexure-1 series) is concerned, as per the judgment dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1831 of 2025 analogously with other seventy-four writ petitions, the report of the DVLC, Ganjam for the year 2024-2026 has already been quashed.

For which, there is no justification under law for passing an order to quash the Annexure-1 series again in this writ petition.

7. When, it is held above that, out of the two relief(s) sought for by the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for one relief, i.e., to direct the Sub-Registrar, Berhampur-I (Opposite Party No.5) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner, then, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed in part.

8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

The Sub-Registrar, Berhampur-I (Opposite Party No.5) is directed to receive the deed for sale of the petitioner, if the same is presented by the petitioner annexing the certified