Sabita Agrawala Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

Sabita Agrawala Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed on contest; Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh to the District Sub-Registrar, Boudh quashed/set aside; petition disposed of finally.

Issue for consideration

Whether the issuance of Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-6) by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh, directing temporary stoppage of registration of plots under Khata No.217 and their subsequent divided plots, is in conformity with law.

Court's answer

Neither Section 68 nor Section 22-A of the Registration Act empowers a District Registrar to direct Sub-registrars under him not to register a document presented for registration if it fulfils the statutory requirements and formalities; the power under Section 68 is purely administrative (superintendence and control).

Ratio / Principle

Refusal to register an instrument is permissible only under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, where the properties fall within sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof.

Key takeaways

The ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh had no power or authority under law to issue Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-6) directing stoppage of registration; Annexure-6, being contrary to law, is liable to be and is quashed.ratio¶51
The decisions relied on by both parties (paras 7 and 8 of the judgment) were held inapplicable, being distinguishable on facts and law from the matter at hand.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Registration Act, 1908 — Sections 68 and 22-A — Scope of District Registrar's power — Power under Section 68 is purely administrative, being one of superintendence and control over Sub-Registrars; it does not empower an ADM-cum-District Registrar to direct Sub-Registrars to stop registration of documents that comply with statutory requirements and formalities — Refusal of registration is governed solely by Section 22-A (inserted 22.02.2014), where the property falls within sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) — Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024 issued by ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh directing temporary stoppage of registration of plots of Khata No.217, Mouza-Boudhgarh, and subsequent divided plots, issued without authority of law and quashed — Decisions cited by both sides held distinguishable — Writ petition allowed on contest (A.C. Behera, J.).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.2946 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

Sabita Agrawala …. Petitioner -versus…. State of Odisha, represented through Opposite Parties the Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others

Appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Dhal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty Learned Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 24.06.2025 / date of judgment : 04.07.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-Registrar,

Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) for temporary stoppage of registration of plots and their subsequent divided plots indicated in the said letter vide

Annexure-6.

I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties.

The RoR of Khata No.217 containing several plots indicated in Annexure-6 was published in the name of Banamali Vyas. As per orders passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975, the Tahasildar, Boudh corrected the RoR of Khata No.217 from the name of Banamali Vyas to the name of his legal heirs after the death of Banamali Vyas. The legal heirs of Banamali Vyas sold the said properties covered under Khata No.217 in Mouza-Boudhgarh to the petitioner of this writ petition on dated 09.07.2014 by executing and registering a sale deed. Thereafter, the RoR of the said properties was corrected to the name of the petitioner as per the orders passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 respectively filed by the petitioner.

Out of the properties under Khata No.217, the petitioner alienated Ac.10.000 decimal to her different purchasers through different sale

deeds and the said purchasers of the petitioner have already mutated their purchased properties to their names through different mutation cases.

Page 2 of 9

Thereafter, the Additional Tahasildar, Bouth filed an appeal vide Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub-collector,

Boudh(Opposite Party No.3) challenging the orders for mutation of the properties under Khata No.217 passed in Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 respectively in favour of the petitioner along with her purchasers on the basis of orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in OLR Revision Case No.24 of 1994 in setting aside the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Boudh in OLR Case No.830 of 1975.

As, in the said Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Subcollector, Bouth, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party, for which, the petitioner filed an application under Order-1, Rule-10 of the C.P.C. on dated 22.06.2024 in that Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 for her impleadment as a party, which is pending for consideration.

While, the matters had stood thus, she(petitioner) came to know that, the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) has issued Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh(Opposite Party No.4) directing him(Opposite Party No.4) to stop registration of plots covered under Khata No.217 and subsequent divided plots thereof until further order to

Page 3 of 9

avoid any dispute in future as per request letter dated 03.12.2024 of the Tahasildar, Boudh indicating therein that,

“The Tahasildar, Boudh has intimated him that, properties indicated in that Annexure-6 containing eight plots covered under Khata No.217 in Mouza-Boudhgarh primarily belongs to the Ceiling surplus land of Sri Navin Prasad Dev, but, the same were mutated as per order passed in OLR Case No.830 of 1975 in favour of Smt. Suman Joshi and five others misinterpreting to the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.6970 of 2008. In this connection, Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 has been initiated before the Sub-collector, Boudh. Further, it has been reported that, some transactions and mutations have already been done over the concerned plots and it is going on.”

After knowing about the issuance of that Annexure-6 by the ADM-

cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Subregistrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) regarding temporary stoppage of registration of plots and their subsequent divided plots covered under Khata No.217 of Mouza-Boudhgarh indicated in that Annexure-6, the petitioner challenged the same by filing this writ petition praying for quashing that Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6), as the said letter is ultimately affecting her rights in respect of the properties recorded in her name covered in that letter vide Annexure-6.

During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions in order to quash the Annexure-6 issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) and the said decisions are :-

Page 4 of 9

(i) 2025(I) OLR-887 : Daitari Jena vrs. State of Odisha and others.

(ii) 2025(I) OLR-936 : Jajati Keshari Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha and others.

(iii) 2025(I) OLR-874 : Damodar Mishra vrs. State of Odisha and others.

On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel for the State in support of the Anenxure-6 issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) relied upon the following decision:-

(i) W.P.(C) No.11897 of 2023 : T. Thevarasan, represented by his Power of Attorney Agent A Navaneetham vrs. The Sub Registrar Joint-II, South Chennai, Chennai and others ( Madras ).

On the basis of the rival contentions of the learned counsels of

both the sides, the crux of this writ petition is,

Whether, the issuance of Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) regarding temporary stoppage of registration of plots and their subsequent divided plots indicated in that Annexure-6 is inconformity with law?

Section 68 of The Registration Act, 1908 provides power to the District Registrars like the Opposite Party No.2 in this writ petition to exercise power of superintendence and control over Sub-registrars including the District Sub-registrar under him/her inside the District.

The said power of the ADM-cum-District Registrar under Section

68 of The Registration Act is only an administrative power.

Page 5 of 9

Section 68 of The Registration Act does not empower any ADMcum-District Registrar like Opposite Party No.2 in this matter at hand to direct the Sub-registrars under him/her inside the District like Opposite Party No.4 for non-registration of any document presented for registration, if the said document complies with the statutory requirements and formalities of its registration.

Section 22-A (as inserted into the statute book on dated 22.02.2014) of the Registration Act empowers the Registering Officer for the refusal to register certain documents enumerated therein.

Neither Section 68 nor Section 22-A of the Registration Act empowers any District Registrar like Opposite Party No.2 in this writ petition to direct the Sub-registrars under him like District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) not to register any document presented for registration, if the said document fulfills the statutory requirements and formalities of registration.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act empowers the Sub-registrars like District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) to refuse the registration of any instrument, if the properties covered therein fall within the purview of Sub-clause(a), (b) and (c) of that Section 22-A.

Page 6 of 9

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions interpreting

Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 :-

(i) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association vrs. State of Bihar : reported in AIR 1989(Patna)-144 (Para No.5)—Indian Registration Act, 1908—Section 68—Scope of the Section— The power of the District Registrar under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 is an administrative power to exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-registrars. The Registrar in exercise of the power under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot direct the Sub-registrars not to register a document presented for registration, if the document complies with the statutory requirements and formalities of Registration.

(ii) In a case between Jodh Singh vrs. The Registrar : reported in 1999(1) Civil Court Cases(P&H)-413 (Para No.15)—Registration Act, 1908—Section 68—Scope of the Section— The power conferred under Section 68 of the Act on the Registrar is to exercise superintendence and control over the Sub-registrar, which is an administrative power.

(iii) In a case between P. Pappu vrs. The Sub-Registrar, Rasipuram SRO, Rasipuram, Namakkal district : reported in 2025(2) Civil Law Judgments-205(Madras (Para No.8)— Registration Act, 1908—Section 22-A, 68 and 69— Registration of instrument—Refusal—Legality— Even if a person sells a property that does not belong to him, there is no provision in the Registration Act, to enable the Sub-registrar to refuse registration except Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

When, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the

ratio of the above decisions interpreting Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908 that, Section 68 of The Registration Act confers power upon the Registrar only for exercising his/her superintendence and control over the Sub-registrars and the said power is purely administrative in nature, therefore, the Registrar cannot in exercise of his power under Section 68

Page 7 of 9

of the Registration Act, 1908 direct any Sub-registrar not to register any document in respect of any property presented for registration, if the said document complies all the statutory requirements and formalities of the Registration Act and Rules making the same fit for registration. For which, it is held that, the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) to stop registration of the plots indicated in that Annexure-6 and subsequent divided plots thereof is not inconformity with the provisions of law. As such, the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) had no power or authority under law to issue the Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) directing him to stop registration of the properties covered under Annexure-6.

Therefore, Annexure-6, which was issued by the ADM-cumDistrict Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Subregistrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) being contrary to law is liable to be quashed. For which, the decisions relied by the parties indicated in para nos.7 and 8 of this judgment have become inapplicable being distinguishable from this matter at hand on facts and law as discussed above.

Page 8 of 9

Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same must succeed.

In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest.

The Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024(Annexure-6)

issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) is quashed(set aside)

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

( A.C. Behera )

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 4^th of June, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 10-Jul-2025 15:38:04

Page 9 of 9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Letter No.12702/Rev/2024 dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure-6) issued by the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.2) to the District Sub-Registrar, Boudh (Opposite Party No.4) directing temporary stoppage of registration of plots covered under Khata No.217 and subsequent divided plots until further order.¶18
ADM-cum-District Registrar, Boudh · 16.12.2024
Prior proceeding
RoR of Khata No.217 was published in the name of Banamali Vyas; on orders in OLR Case No.830 of 1975 the Tahasildar, Boudh corrected the RoR to his legal heirs after his death.¶11
Prior proceeding
The legal heirs of Banamali Vyas sold the Khata No.217 properties in Mouza-Boudhgarh to the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2014.¶11
Prior proceeding
RoR was corrected to the petitioner's name pursuant to Mutation Case Nos.1057/14, 1058/14, 1059/14 and 1060/14 filed by her.¶11
Prior proceeding
The petitioner alienated Ac.10.000 decimal out of the Khata No.217 properties to different purchasers through sale deeds, who mutated the purchases in their names.¶12
Prior proceeding
The Additional Tahasildar, Bouth filed Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the Sub-Collector, Boudh (Opposite Party No.3) challenging the mutation orders in favour of the petitioner and her purchasers.¶15
Prior proceeding
The mutation challenge rested on orders of the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in OLR Revision Case No.24 of 1994 setting aside the Tahasildar, Boudh's orders in OLR Case No.830 of 1975.¶16
Prior proceeding
Not impleaded in Mutation Appeal No.01 of 2024, the petitioner applied on 22.06.2024 under Order-1, Rule-10 CPC for impleadment; the application is pending.¶17
Prior proceeding
Per the Tahasildar, Boudh's request letter dated 03.12.2024 (quoted in the judgment), the Annexure-6 plots were asserted to primarily belong to the ceiling surplus land of Sri Navin Prasad Dev but were mutated in favour of Smt. Suman Joshi and five others under OLR Case No.830 of 1975.¶21
Prior proceeding
The Tahasildar's letter asserted the mutation was done misinterpreting the order dated 28.07.2009 of the High Court in W.P.(C) No.6970 of 2008; some transactions and mutations over the plots were reported as already done and ongoing.¶21