Disposed

Binay Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 Nov 2024WP(C)/5726/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging the denial of document registration under Section 22A of the Registration (Odisha Amendment Act), holding that the statutory appeal remedy under Section 72 was available; however, it granted liberty to approach the appellate authority while allowing liberal credit for time spent in the writ proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the statutory Appellate Authority for appeal against the orders refusing document registration.

Binay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5722 of 2024

¶2

Binay Kumar Das & Another … Petitionerss

¶3

Mr. S.P. Misra, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. Jagajiban Pradhan, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties

¶6

Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA

¶7

W.P.(C) No.5726 of 2024

¶8

Binay Kumar Das & Another

¶9

… Petitioners

¶10

Mr. S.P. Misra, Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. Jagajiban Pradhan, Advocate

¶11

-versus-

¶12

State of Odisha and others

¶13

… Opposite Parties Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA

¶14

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No. 09.

05.11.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶19

In these two writ petitions, the Petitioners seek to assail the order dated 02.02.2024 in Refusal Case No.02 of 2024 and in Refusal Case No.01 of 2024 by which the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore (DSR) has refused to register the documents presented before him for the restriction imposed in Section 22A(1)(a)(ii) of the Registration (Odisha Amendment Act), 2013.

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

Mr. S.P. Misra, learned Senior Counsel

¶22

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.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks some time to file counter affidavit in the matter.

¶24

Since it is a matter of refusal of registration of document, this Court considers it apt to state that even if a document presented before the DSR is not

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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 .

¶30

In the aforesaid premises, since the orders impugned are appealable in terms of Section-72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the petitioners would have statutorily availed such remedy, but instead of approaching the statutory Appelate Authority, the petitioners have directly approached this Court without satisfying/assigning any reason to bypass such Appealate Authority.

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

In the circumstances, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits, disposes of both the writ petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the statutory Appellate Authority for seeking redressal of their grievance. Needless to say that in the event the petitioners approach the Appellate Authority assailing the impugned orders, the time taken by the petitioners prosecuting bonafide the present litigations in these writ petitions may be considered liberally in accordance with law, while computing the period of limitation for condonation of delay in preferring the appeals.

¶33

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶34

Narayan

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-Nov-2024 11:00:59

¶37

Page 5 of 5

Binay Kumar Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binay Kumar Das 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

Pramod Ku.Das Vs Md,Orissa S.Co.Opera

Ram Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Samir Naik Vs State of Odisha

Gauranga Kumar Padhy Vs Sripurna Padhi

Gouranga Charan Sethy Vs Srimati Ranjukta Sethy

Binay Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha