Writ petitions challenged the District Sub-Registrar's refusal to register documents citing Section 22A. The court held appealable orders required use of the statutory appellate route and disposed of the petitions granting liberty to appeal, with liberal limitation treatment for time spent in writ litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2024
Binay Kumar Das & Another … Petitionerss
Mr. S.P. Misra, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. Jagajiban Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
W.P.(C) No.5726 of 2024
Binay Kumar Das & Another
… Petitioners
Mr. S.P. Misra, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. Jagajiban Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
… Opposite Parties Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
Order No. 09.
05.11.2024
Page 1 of 5
appearing along with Mr. Jagajiban Pradhan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that not only the DSR has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, but also has erroneously refused to register the documents. Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel by taking this Court through relevant documents submits that sanction in this case is not necessary for getting the documents registered, but the DSR by erroneously interpreting the law in his own way has come to a conclusion that sanction under Section-22A(1)(a)(ii) of the Registration (Odisha Amendment Act), 2013 is required for registration of the documents. Mr. Mishra, however, contends that existence of alternative remedy would not preclude the Petitioners from approaching this Court by invoking the provision of Article-226 of the Constitution of India and if the Petitioners are relegated to the provision of Appeal, the time taken by the Petitioners in prosecuting bonafide the present litigation before this Court may be excluded while computing the period of limitation for condonation of delay in approaching the Appellate forum.
Page 2 of 5
registerable for any valid legal reason, the DSR has to assign such reason in his order refusing to register the said documents so as to facilitate the Petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority. The provision of Appeal has been succinctly provided in Section-72 of the Registration Act, 1908, wherein, it is explicitly stated that except where the refusal is made on the ground of denial of execution, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Sub-Registrar refusing to admit a document to registration (whether the registration of such document is compulsory or optional) to the Registrar to whom such Sub-Registrar is subordinate, if presented to such Registrar within thirty days from the date of the order; and the Registrar may reverse or alter such order.
It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mishra that the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack vide Letter No.IX-147/2019(PL) 4211 dated 25.09.2023, issued to the Secretary, Mirgoda Krishna Prasad Trust Board has given liberty to the Secretary to present the document before the concerned Sub-Registrar for enabling him to take a decision as per the provisions laid down under section 22A of the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ Petitioners have presented the document before the DSR, Balasore, but the DSR, Balasore has passed the impugned order refusing to
Page 3 of 5
register the document. However, since there is clearcut provisions of appeal as stated supra, the Petitioners can avail that remedy, but the Petitioners have filed writ petitions before this Court, notwithstanding to the fact that appeals could have been filed against the impugned orders. True it is that existence of an alternative remedy would not absolutely prevent the petitioners for approaching this Court by filing writ petitions, but the petitioners has to convince as to why they have not approached the statutory Appellate Authority in this case. In this case, the Registering Authority is considered to be exercising a quasi judicial power for matters relating to registration of documents, but the exercise of such power will still be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is of course subject to the exhaustion of the remedies statutorily available as held by the Apex Court in Asset Reconstruction Company(India) Limited vrs. S.P. Velayuthanm and others; (2022) 8 SCC 210 .
Page 4 of 5
(G. Satapathy) Judge
Narayan
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Nov-2024 11:00:59
Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Should the writ petitions proceed despite the availability of statutory appeal against refusal of registration under Section 72?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vrs. S.P. Velayuthanm and othersRelied on¶5
(2022) 8 SCC 210 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Binay Kumar Das & Another
State of Odisha and others
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
