Allowed

Radhakanta Bag v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 May 2023WP(C)/9068/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that registration authorities are bound by a prior Division Bench judgment regarding land conversion. It quashed a rejection of a registration appeal and directed the Sub-Registrar to process the registration within one week.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the Miscellaneous (Registration) Appeal was set aside. The petitioners were directed to seek registration from the Sub-Registrar within one week.

Radhakanta Bag Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9068 OF 2023

¶3

Radhakanta Bag & Anr.

¶4

…. Petitioner(s) Mr.K.A.Guru,Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Anr.

¶7

…. Opposite Party(s) Mr.U.K.Sahoo,ASC

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

¶9

Order No.

¶10

ORDER
02.05.2023

¶11

1. On oral submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in prayer portion of the writ petition in Court today.

¶12

(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
Order No.4 ORDER
02.05.2023
W.P.(C) No. 9068 of 2023

¶13

On consent of Parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Undisputedly the status of the land involved herein appears to have been allowed the conversion in allowing the proceeding under Section 8(A) of the O.L.R. Act. Accordingly there has been consequential preparation of Record of Rights. It is after the conversion is allowed, the applicant having attempted to sale the land, there has been attempt for registration of the instrument involved therein. Registration having been turndown by the Registering Authority, an Appeal has been preferred involving Misc.

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

(Registration) Appeal No.01 of 2023. The Appeal undertaking an Appeal exercise, the Competent Authority even in spite of the decision of this Court in similar case may be on the premises of pendency of the Writ Appeal declined to allow the Appeal and thereby rejecting the Appeal involved herein.

¶17

Taking this Court to the decision in W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2016 vide Annexure-5, inference has been drawn by learned counsel for the Petitioner to satisfy the Court that once there is already a decision of this Court involving similar issue particularly when such decision is even affirmed in dismissal of the Writ Appeal bearing W.A. No.1678 of 2022, there is no other option with the Competent Authority than to be abided by the judgment of this Court. It is in the above premises the Appeal order is assailed and sought to be quashed.

¶18

Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel however finds no scope in disputing on the point of law as the issue involved already decided in W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2016 and there is also affirmation of the same judgment in the dismissal of W.A. No.1678 of 2022, for there is production of copy of Division Bench order also in the process of hearing.

¶19

In the circumstance this Court finds, the Single Judge judgment observing once there is already conversion by the competent court of law and unless such conversion order has been challenged in appropriate forum, order therein is set aside by competent court of law, the authorities under the Registration Act are bound by the same. 6. In the circumstance and for the ratio decided in W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2016 has a direct application to the case at hand, this Court finds reasoning in rejection of the Misc. (Registration) Appeal Case No. 01 of 2023 is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court interferes with the order at Annexure-3 and sets aside the same.

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

In the event the instrument seeking registration involving the land involved herein lying the Registering Authority, the concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to pass the registration involving such instrument. This Court also clarifies in the event the instrument is returned to the applicant seeking registration, it may be open to the applicant to surrender the instrument for registration of the same by the Competent Authority within one week along with certified copy of this order for his undertaking the registration exercise. Work involving the registration be concluded at least within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order either by learned State Counsel or by the Petitioner along with copy of instrument, if it is in the custody of the Petitioner herein.

¶23

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction hereinabove.

¶24

(Biswanath Rath)
Judge

¶25

Sks

¶26

Digitally signed by SUSIL KUMAR SUSIL KUMAR SWAIN SWAIN Date: 2023.05.03 13:17:27 +05'30'

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Radhakanta Bag v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakanta Bag 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

Saudamini Swain Vs State of Odisha

Sanjeba Kumar Patnaik Vs Sangramjeet Nayak, I.A.S.

Sarojkanta Malalick Vs B.D.a.,Bbsr

Bhagirathi Mohanty Vs State

Santosh Kumar Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Barma Munda Vs State of Odisha