Disposed

Sakuntala Dash v. Sub-Registrar, Pipili

Orissa HC19 Jul 2022WP(C)/16865/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the Sub-Registrar, Pipili to register a sale deed for a plot in Puri district. The court held that the petitioner must first file an application before the Sub-Registrar with the original document. The Sub-Registrar was directed to entertain the application within two weeks and provide reasons for refusal if applicable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application with original document; Opposite Party directed to entertain and consider within two weeks.

Sakuntala Dash Vs Sub-Registrar, Pipili — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 16865 of 2022

¶3

Sakuntala Dash

¶4

..… Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Sub-Registrar, Pipili and another

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, Additional Government Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

19.07.2022

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to Sub-Registrar, Pipili (OP No.1) to accept the sale deed pertaining to Plot No.687 under Khata No.150 to an extent of area Ac.0.20 decimal in mouza Ekchalia under Pipili tahasil in the district of Puri presented by the Petitioner forthwith and register the same.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that although he has presented documents for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Pipili, he refused to register the same.

¶18

Section-71 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on the ground that the property to which it relates is not situated within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record his reasons for such order in his Book No.2, and endorse the words “ registration refused ” on the document; and, on application made by any person executing or claiming under the

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

document, shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give him a copy of the reasons so recorded.

¶22

In view of the clear provision, the petitioner is required to file an application before the Sub-Registrar, Pipili along with the document intended to be registered in original, in order to take further action in the matter. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner files an application within a period of two weeks hence along with the document in original, the Opposite Party No.1-Sub-Registrar, Pipili shall do well to take into consideration the application of the Petitioner and entertain the same. If he is of the opinion that the document /instrument cannot be registered shall supply the reasons of refusal of registration of the document within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

¶25

s.s.satapathy

¶26

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Sakuntala Dash v. Sub-Registrar, Pipili

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakuntala Dash v. Sub-Registrar, Pipili

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trilochan Barik Vs R.T.O., Cuttack

Bikala Charan Sasmal Vs Nanda Sasmal

Jagan Mallik @ Jagan Kumar Mallik Vs Parikshita Mallick @ Paresh Ray

Subal Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Gouranga Sahoo Vs Bata Krushna Sahoo

Minati Patajoshi Vs Bauribandhu Patajosh