Disposed

Prafulla Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC26 Oct 2022WP(C)/27536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding refusal of a sale deed's registration, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar was ordered to consider the application and pass a reasoned order, keeping a specific precedent in mind, rather than granting the prayer directly via this writ.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file application under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908; Sub-Registrar directed to consider it and pass reasons for refusal within three weeks.

Prafulla Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 27536 OF 2022

¶2

Prafulla Kumar Sahu and others ... Petitioners Ms. D. Sahu, Advocate -versus-

¶3

…. State of Odisha and others Opp. Parties

¶4

Mr. A.R. Dash, Additional Government Advocate

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.10.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the Sub-Registrar, Bonai-Opposite Party No.2 to register the sale deed presented before him in respect of Plot Nos.1564 and 1564/P under Khata No.572 situated in mouza Bonaigada under Bonai Tahasil in the district of Sundargarh.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner has produced the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Bonai, he has refused to register the same.

¶14

Section-71 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) 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

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

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

¶18

In view of the clear provision, the Petitioner is required to file an application under Section 71 of the Act in order to take further action in the matter. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner files an application under Section 71 of the Act along with the document intended to be registered within a period of two weeks hence along with certified copy of this order, the Sub-Registrar, Bonai-Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same and pass a reasoned order thereon keeping the ratio decided in the case of Dhabal Prasad Pradhan –v- State of Odisha and others , reported in 2014 (II) OLR 902, in mind. If the Sub-Registrar, Bonai is of the opinion that the deed/document in question cannot be registered, he shall supply the reasons of refusal of registration of such document within a period of three weeks therefrom.

¶19

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

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner undertakes to serve a copy of the writ petition along with copy of this order on learned State Counsel for reference and communication.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

bks

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Prafulla Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tripurari Singh Yadav Vs State of Odisha

Pramila Parida Vs State of Odisha

Sanjay Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Satyajit Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ajay Kumar Biswal Vs Transport Commnr. Cum Chairman, Sta, Cuttack

Japa Krushna Sahoo Vs Sarojini Swain@Sahoo