Allowed

Jayanti Bala Samal v. I.G of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack

Orissa HC15 May 2024WP(C)/927/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Orissa held that a Registering Officer cannot refuse registration of a gift deed based on an unchallenged revenue record publication. The Court set aside the refusal order, noting that the remedy under the Registration Act does not bar interim relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing registration is set aside. Petitioner directed to register the gift deed within two weeks of presenting the original.

Jayanti Bala Samal Vs I.G of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 927 OF 2024

¶2

Jayanti Bala Samal …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Panda, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Inspector General of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack and others

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

Mr. Debendra Kumar Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

15.05.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Order dated 31^st October, 2023 (Annexure-6) passed by

¶16

the Registering Officer, Dharmasala is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby a gift deed presented by the Petitioner for registration was refused to be registered in exercise of power under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

¶17

Mr. Panda, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner being the rightful owner of the property in question, i.e. Plot No.119 under Khata No.69 to an extent of Ac.0.16 decimals, Kisam-Gharabari, situated in mouza Kumari under Dharmasala Tahasil in the district of Jajpur (for short ‘the case land’) executed a gift deed in favour of her son, namely, Somya Ranjan Samal. The gift deed in question was not accepted by the Registering Officer, Dharmasala for registration for which the Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) No.27045 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 24^th August, 2023 with a direction that in the event the Petitioner presents the document in

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

original before the Registering Officer, Dharmasala within a period of two weeks following due procedure, registration of the document should be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Petitioner presented the document in original and the impugned order under Annexure-6 has been passed.

¶21

3.1 Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Registering Officer, Dharmasala sat over the matter as a revisional Court to test the legality of the R.O.R. published in the name of the Petitioner under the provisions of OCH and PFL Act, 1972. It is his submission that the Registering Officer, Dharmasala under the Act does not have any quasi-judicial power to sit over the R.O.R. issued by the Consolidation Authority. He is only required to examine the R.O.R. on its face value and register the document in exercise of its administrative power under the Act. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-6 and to direct the Registering Officer, Dharmasala to register the gift deed presented by the Petitioner.

¶22

Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala submits that there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the order passed under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has a remedy under Section 72 of the Act to file an appeal against the order of rejection passed under Section 71 of the Act. Reiterating the ground on which the gift deed was refused to be registered, Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the case land corresponds to Sabik Plot No.84 (Part) with an area

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

of Ac.82.78 decimals of Sabik Khata No.40 of village Kumari with status Anabadi. The classification of Sabik Plot No.84 was Jungle (Chhota Jungle). During consolidation operation, part of the said Government plot was wrongly recorded under Sthitiban status in Hal Khata No.69 containing Hal Plot No.119 in the name of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner should not take advantage of wrong recording of the case land in her name by the Consolidation Authority. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

This matter was listed on 25^th April, 2024. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court directed learned State Counsel to take instruction as to whether any Consolidation Revision has been filed assailing the correctness of consolidation R.O.R. under Annexure-2 or not. No document to that effect has yet been produced. It is specifically averred at paragraph-16 of the writ petition that although consolidation R.O.R. was published in favour of the Petitioner in the year, 1996, but the same has not yet been questioned in any Court of law. The consolidation R.O.R. under Annexure-2 was published on 20^th April, 1996. There is no specific denial to the said averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the SubRegistrar, Dharmasala. In absence of any material to the effect that consolidation R.O.R. under Annexure-2 has been set aside by any competent Court of law, this Court is constrained to hold that the same holds the field. Since the consolidation R.O.R. is a document of title, the Registering Officer could not have denied to register the gift deed presented by the Petitioner. Although a remedy is available under Section 72 of the Act, but that does

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

not impede the Petitioner to move this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶30

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-6 is set aside and it is directed that in the event the Petitioner presents the gift deed in question in original before the SubRegistrar, Dharmasala within a period of two weeks hence, the same shall be registered as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks therefrom.

¶31

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶32

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶33

application.

¶34

bks

¶35

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 15-May-2024 18:56:53

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Jayanti Bala Samal v. I.G of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Bala Samal v. I.G of Registration, Odisha, Cuttack

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

M/S.Bharat Electrica Vs Micro and Small Enterp

G.M.Finance,Sail Vs Registrar,Cooperati

Sita Devi Bagaria Vs Ramawtar Bagaria

Ramesh Nayak Vs Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

Goura Chandra Pattanayak Vs C.E.O., Tata Power Central Odisha, Bbsr

Prasanta Barik Vs State Election Commission, Bbsr