Allowed

Bijay Kumar Swain v. the Collector, Cuttack

Orissa HC17 Oct 2025WP(C)/11096/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar's refusal to register a sale deed based on a clarification from the District Registrar regarding leasehold status. The Court held that the Sub-Registrar acts independently under the Registration Act and cannot refuse registration based on title disputes or external opinions, directing registration of the deed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of refusal of registration quashed; Sub-Registrar directed to register the sale deed.

Bijay Kumar Swain Vs the Collector, Cuttack — Quashing and FIR | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.11096 of 2025

¶3

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

¶4

India. *** Bijay Kumar Swain .......…… Petitioner -VERSUS-

¶5

The Collector, Cuttack and others ………. Opposite Parties

¶6

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. D.Chatterjee, Advocate Mr.A.K.Mishra-2, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr.Gyanalok Mohanty, S.C. (for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3)

¶8

P R E S E N T:

¶9

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶10

Date of Hearing: 10.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 17.10.2025

¶11

Page 1 of 15

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶14

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for quashing (setting aside) the order of refusal of registration of the deed for sale of the Petitioner passed on dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) and to direct the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) of the Petitioner. 2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the land in question involved in the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) was originally settled in favour of the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. in favour of the O.P. No.4 in a Jawan Lease case in the year 1973, as the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. O.P. No.4 was a Ex-Army person. The R.o.R. of the properties indicated in the deed for sale was recorded in the name of the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. in the name of the O.P. No.4. under Khata No.243/94 under Stitiban status. The vendor of the Petitioner i.e. O.P. No.4 had/has been possessing the properties of Khata No.243/94 in

¶15

Page 2 of 15

¶16

Mouza Madhabapur under Athagarh Tahasil since the date of settlement of the same in his name i.e. since the year 1973 and he (O.P. No.4) had/has been paying rent of the same to the Government regularly with valid rent receipts. In order to meet the necessities of the O.P. No.4, he (O.P. No.4) gave a proposal of sale of the Properties under Khata No.243/94, Plot No.491/1012/1120 to the Petitioner, to which, the Petitioner accepted and agreed to purchase on payment of due consideration amount thereof and thereafter, the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) was executed by the O.P. No.4 in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Plot No.491/1012/1120 and the same was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) on dated 28.02.2025 for its registration.

¶17

But, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) without registering the said deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) on the same day i.e. 28.02.2025, he (O.P. No.3) deferred its registration and sought for a clarification from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2), whether the said deed for sale (Original of Annexure-1) is registrable or not.

¶18

Page 3 of 15

¶19

After receiving the reply from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) through letter No.646/2025 (DSR) dated 09.04.2025, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) passed the impugned order dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) refusing to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) of the Petitioner assigning the reasons that,

¶20

“the deed for sale was presented by the Petitioner before him on dated 28.02.2025, but, after scrutiny, it is found that, the schedule property mentioned in the presented sale deed has been mutated from its previous Khata No.249, which was recorded by Jawan Lease Case No.23 in the year 1973 as mentioned in the remarks column of the R.o.R. For which, necessary clarification was sought for from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack in this regard, whether the said properties are transferbale through sale deed or not. The A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack vide its office letter No.89 dated 03.03.2025 clarified through its letter No.646/2025 (DSR) dated 09.04.2025 that, the land should not be transferred, as it holds the leasehold status, because, it was settled in Jawan Lease Case with certain terms and conditions, for which, the said document is refused for registration as per Rule 148(xi) of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988”.

¶21

Page 4 of 15

¶22

3. On being dissatisfied with the above order of refusal of registration to the deed for sale executed by the O.P. No.4 in favour of the Petitioner passed on dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3), the Petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the said order of refusal of registration passed on dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) and to direct the O.P. No.3 to register the deed for sale (Original of Annexure-1).

¶23

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

5. Undisputedly, the R.o.R. of Plot No.491/1012/1120 under Khata No.243/94 vide Annexure-1 stands in the name of the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. in the name of the O.P. No.4 (Baidyanath Rath) under Stitiban status and the vendor of the Petitioner has been paying rent of the same to the Government regularly and the Government has been receiving the rents of the same from the O.P. No.4 and providing rent receipts. In the

¶25

Page 5 of 15

¶26

remarks column of the said R.o.R of Plot No.491/1012/1120 under Khata No.243/94, it has been indicated/reflected that, the R.o.R. has been prepared in the name of the O.P. No.4 (Baidyanath Rath) on the basis of the Jawan Lease Case No.23 of 1973.

¶27

6. The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) has refused to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) executed by the O.P. No.4 in respect of Plot No.491/1012/1120 under Khata No.243/94 in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of the letter No.646/2025 (DSR) dated 09.04.2025 of the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2), wherein, it was stated by the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack that,

¶28

“the land should not be transferred, as it holds the leasehold status, as it is settled in Jawan Lease Case with certain terms and conditions”.

¶29

7. Now, the question arises,

¶30

(i) Whether the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) was/is authorized under law to seek clarification from the A.D.M.-cum-District Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) that, whether the deed for sale executed by the O.P. No.4 in favour of the Petitioner in respect of Plot No.491/1012/1120 under Khata No.243/94 in Mouza Madhabapur can be registered or not by him (O.P. No.3)?

¶31

Page 6 of 15

¶32

(ii) Whether, the impugned order for refusal of registration to the deed for sale i.e. original of Annxure-1 passed on dated 10.04.2025 by the O.P. No.3 is sustainable under law?

¶33

8. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been

¶34

clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶35

(i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and Others Vrs . State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1989 (Patna) 144 (D.B.) that ,

¶36

The Indian Registration Act, 1908 has statutorily empowered/authorized the sub-Registrars to decide independently as per the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, whether the deed presented before him is registrable or not. The Sub-Registrars are empowered under law as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 to pass order for the refusal of registration, if any document is not registable as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Against the order of refusal of Registration, the aggrieved party can challenge the same as per law before its appellate authority i.e. before the District Registrar under Section 72 of the Indian Registration Act.

¶37

So the decisions for registration or nonregistration of a deed for sale by the subregistrar is not dependent upon any clarification or direction of its Appellate Authority i.e. District Registrar. Because, Section 68 of the Registration Act, empowers the District Registrar to superintend and control the sub-registrars under him. The said power is an administrative power conferred on the District Registrar to exercise superintendence and control over the sub-registrars.

¶38

The District Registrar cannot in exercise of the power under Section 68 of the Indian Registration Act, direct the sub-Registrar either to

¶39

Page 7 of 15

¶40

register or not to register a document presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration.

¶41

(ii) In a case between Smt. Sulochanamma Vrs. H. Nanjundaswamy and others reported in 2001 (I) Civ.C.C. 568 (Karnataka) in Para No.5 that,

¶42

refusal of registration of a deed for sale by the Sub-Registrar on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar (to whom the matter was referred by the Sub-Registrar) that, the land revenue documents were false, in that case the SubRegistrar is not entitled to refuse registration on such ground, when the deed is presented to him is completed in its all respect.

¶43

9. When, the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) was/is statutorily empowered under law to take decision independently, whether the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) presented before him is registrable or not and when the A.D.M.-cumDistrict Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) being the Appellate Authority of the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) against its order of refusal of registration is not authorized under law to direct the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) for nonregistration of any document like the original of Annexure-1, then at this juncture, the clarifications given by the A.D.M.-cumDistrict Registrar, Cuttack (O.P. No.2) through its letter No.646/2025 (DSR) dated 09.04.2025 to the Sub-Registrar,

¶44

Page 8 of 15

¶45

Athagarh (O.P. No.3) for non-registration of the deed for sale i.e.

¶46

original of Annexure-1 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶47

10. The other question is,

¶48

when, the R.o.R of the properties involved in the deed for sale vide Khata No.243/94 stands in the name of the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. in the name of O.P. No.4 under Stitiban status with specific indication in its remarks column that, the said R.o.R. was prepared in the name of the O.P. No.4 on the basis of Jawan Lease Case No.23/1973 through correction of the same from Khata No.249 and when, Government is receiving rent of the same from the O.P. No.4 regularly since the year 1973, then at this juncture, whether the SubRegistrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) was/is empowered under law to decline the registration of the deed for sale in respect of the properties covered under that Khata No.243/94 executed by the O.P. No.4 in favour of the Petitioner stating that, the properties involved in that deed for sale cannot not be transferred, as it holds the leasehold status, because, it was settled in Jawan Lease Case with certain terms and conditions?

¶49

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶50

Page 9 of 15

¶51

(i) In a case between Chandy Varghese and others Vrs. K.Abdul Khader and others reported in 96 (2003) CLT (S.C.) 700 in para No.22 that,

¶52

lease means a transfer of interest in land. A person cannot acquire better right than his transferor.

¶53

(ii) In a case between P.Kishore Kumar Vrs. Vittal K.Patkar reported in 2023 Live Law (SC 999) in Para No.18 that,

¶54

a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet , i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”.

¶55

(iii) In a case between Crystal Developers Vs. Asha Lata Ghosh (Smt) (dead) through LRs and others reported in ( 2005) 9 SCC 375 in Para No.57 that,

¶56

a person cannot confer a better title than what he has.

¶57

(iv) In a case between Savitri Bai and another Vs. Savitri Bai reported in 2024 (I) CCC 203 (SC) that,

¶58

a person, who is not owner of property cannot pass title of property to another person even by executing a registered sale deed.

¶59

(v) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (II) Civ.C.C. Page 172 Patna & 1988 SCC Online (Patna) 142 in Para No.3 that,

¶60

if the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it.

¶61

Page 10 of 15

¶62

(vi) In a case between Dinesh Singh Vrs. The State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2012 SCC Online Jharkhand 951 in Para No.13 that,

¶63

the Registering Authority cannot delve into the roving enquiry of the nature of the right, title of the vendor in respect of the subject matter of the deed presented for registration.

¶64

(vii) In a case between Bilenbarric Steels Limited Vrs. Regional Development Commissioner for Iron and Steel and others reported in AIR 1991 Calcutta 62 in Para No.8 that,

¶65

The registering authority cannot go into question of the merits of the transaction, to which, the documents relied to register the same.

¶66

(viii) In a case between Ranjeet Singh and another Vrs. Deputy Commissionercum-Registrar, Ambala and another reported in 2012 (3) Civ.C.C. (Punjab and Haryana) 736 in Para No.7 that,

¶67

It does not fall within the domain of registering authority to embark into the question of ownership, when document is presented for registration. For which, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Registrar is set aside and the sub-Registrar is directed to register the sale deed.

¶68

(ix) In a case between Ajay Kumar Yadav Vrs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2024 SCC Online (Jharkhand) 2127 in Para No.8 that,

¶69

if the sale deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there is no legal or formal defect, the Court is of the considered view that, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the deed, if the same is presented for registration, as the Registering Authority is debarred from examining the

¶70

Page 11 of 15

¶71

nature of right, title and character in respect of the subject matter of the sale deed presented for registration, because, the Registering Authority cannot examine the merit and consequential legal effect of the deed presented for registration.

¶72

(x) In a case between K.Gopi Vrs. The SubRegistrar and others reported in 2025 (III) Civ.L.J (SC) 575 in Para No.15 that,

¶73

The registering officer is not concerned with title held by the executant, because, he has no adjudicatory power to decide, whether the executant has any title. Even if, an executant executes a sale deed or a lease deed in respect of a land, of which, he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document, if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. Because, under the scheme of the registration Act, 1908, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain, whether the vendor has title to the property, which he is seeking to transfer. As, the execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title or interest in the property, the registered document cannot affect any transfer.

¶74

(xi) In a case between Daitari Jena Vrs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 887 in Para No.7 that,

¶75

The Registration Act, 1908 do not authorizes the registering officer to enquire into the consequential legal affect as well as merit of the deed in question presented for registration and to refuse its registration expressing opinion on its merit.

¶76

(xii) In a case between P.Pappu Vrs. SubRegistrar, Rasipuram SRO, Rasipuram,

¶77

Page 12 of 15

¶78

Namakkal District reported in 2025 (2) Civ.L.J 205 (Madras) that,

¶79

even if, a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act to enable the Registrar to refuse registration except Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

¶80

11. When, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court that, the Registering Officer is no way concern i.e. whether the executant or executants has/have any title in the properties indicated for sale in the deed presented for registration, as he has no adjudicatory power to decide, whether the executant has any title in the properties for sale or for lease and the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the document, if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duties as well as registration charges/fees are paid, as under the scheme of the registration Act, 1908, it is not the function of the sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain, whether the vendor has title to the property, which is seeking to transfer and when as per law the execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, the executant possess and when if, the executant has no right, title and interest in the property the registered

¶81

Page 13 of 15

¶82

document cannot affect any transfer and when the R.o.R. of the properties covered under the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) stands under stitiban status in the name of the vendor of the Petitioner i.e. in the name of the O.P. No.4, then at this juncture, the O.P. No.3 should not have refused to register the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) of the Petitioner expressing that, the vendor (O.P. No.4) of the Petitioner has the lease hold status in the land and when as per law, the lessee has a transferable interest.

¶83

So, the impugned order of refusal of registration passed by the O.P. No.3 on dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) cannot be sustainable under law.

¶84

12. Therefore, the said impugned order of refusal of registration passed on dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) is liable to be quashed.

¶85

As such, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the Petitioner. The same is to be allowed.

¶86

13. In result, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed.

¶87

Page 14 of 15

¶88

14. The impugned order dated 10.04.2025 (Annexure-4) passed

¶89

by the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) is quashed.

¶90

15. The Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) is directed to act upon the deed for sale (original of Annexure-1) on the very same day of the appearance of the Petitioner, O.P. No.4 and the witnesses as well as identifier thereof before the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) on filing of the certified copy of this judgment as per the Indian Registration Act 1908 and the Rules thereof.

¶91

After registration of the sale deed (original of Annexure-1), the Sub-Registrar, Athagarh (O.P. No.3) shall return that registered sale deed to the Petitioner within three days after complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated

¶92

02.08.2017 of I.G.R., Odisha.

¶93

16. As such, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is disposed of finally.

¶94

Signature Not Verified

¶95

Digitally Signed Signed by: BINAYAK SAHOO High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Reason: Authentication 17.10.2025// Binayak Sahoo Location: High Court of Orissa, C Jr. Stenographer utta ck Date: 21-Oct-2025 11:13:45

¶96

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA)

¶97

JUDGE

¶98

Page 15 of 15

Bijay Kumar Swain v. the Collector, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijay Kumar Swain v. the Collector, Cuttack

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

Bisikesana Narayan Moili Vs Smruti Subhadarsan Sahu,Sub-Registrar,Kukudakhandi,Ganjam

Rajendra Kumar Patro Vs Smruti Subhadarsan Sahu,Sub-Registrar,Kukudakhandi,Ganjam

Bisikesana Narayan Moili Vs Smruti Subhadarsan Sahu,Sub-Registrar,Kukudakhandi,Ganjam

Pradeep Ku.Padhi Vs Durga Ch.Pattnaik

Chakradhar Barik Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Radha Raman Tradecom Pvt. Ltd, West Bengal Vs Sub Registrar, Barchana Jajpur