Disposed¶7

Age Tandi v. Girish Chandra Dharua, Sub Registrar, Titilagarh

Orissa HC17 Mar 2026CONTC/6212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CONTC No.6212 of 2025; decided 17.03.2026; contempt for non-registration of sale deed; Age Tandi & another versus Girish Chandra Dharua, Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, Bolangir; plea that Mouza-Dhanput moved to newly opened Sub-Registrar, Saintala rejected; original Sub-Registrar retains jurisdiction; applies Full Bench 'District Judge, Puri', 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.); Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Indian Registration Act 1908; Orissa Registration Rules 1988; arises from W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, order dated 12.03.2025; contempt dropped and disposed of; Ananda Chandra Behera, J.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dropped without penalty; Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh directed to implement the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 immediately. ¶7

Age Tandi Vs Girish Chandra Dharua, Sub Registrar, Titilagarh — Contempt of Court | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition dropped without penalty; Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh directed to implement the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 immediately.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh could be excused from complying with the directions dated 12.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 on the ground that Mouza-Dhanput had been taken out of his jurisdiction and placed under the newly opened Sub-Registrar, Saintala.

¶5

Court's answer

Applying the clarification in the Full Bench decision in District Judge, Puri, 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.), that the original court retains jurisdiction even after the area containing the property is transferred out, the Court held that the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, who was having original jurisdiction as on the date of the order in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, retains his power to deal with the registration of the deed notwithstanding the transfer of Mouza-Dhanput to Sub-Registrar, Saintala.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

There is no impediment under law for the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh to implement the directions made by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, and he is to implement the order dated 12.03.2025 passed therein immediately.

¶6

Key takeaways

On the basis of the aforesaid clarifications, the contempt petition is dropped and disposed of.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt (under Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) for non-implementation of the order dated 12.03.2025 in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, whereby the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh was directed to receive the Petitioners' deed for sale and act upon it under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. The alleged contemnor pleaded that Mouza-Dhanput had been transferred to the newly opened Sub-Registrar, Saintala. Relying on the Full Bench decision in District Judge, Puri, 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.) (original court retains jurisdiction where the area containing the disputed property is transferred out after institution), the Court held that the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh retains power to register the deed since he had original jurisdiction when the writ order was passed; finding no legal impediment, it directed him to implement the order dated 12.03.2025 immediately and dropped and disposed of the contempt petition. Single member bench: Ananda Chandra Behera, J.; decided 17.03.2026.

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

CONTC No.6212 of 2025

¶3

An application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

¶4

*** Age Tandi & another … Petitioners

¶5

-VERSUS-

¶6

Girish Chandra Dharua, Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, Bolangir … Contemnor

¶7

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶8

For the Petitioners :Mr. G.Dash, Advocate For the Contemnor :Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, SC

¶9

P R E S E N T:

¶10

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶11

Page 1 of 5

¶12

Date of Hearing : 17.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 17.03.2026

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶15

1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioners for non-implementation of the directions given in the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024.

¶16

In the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, the alleged contemnor was directed to receive the deed for sale of the Petitioners and to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988.

¶17

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners and

¶18

the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶19

3. Perused the show-cause affidavit submitted by the alleged contemnor i.e. Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh.

¶20

4. In the show-cause affidavit, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh (alleged contemnor) has assigned reasons for nonimplementation of the above directions given in the order

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 for

¶23

non-registration of the deed for sale of the Petitioners that,

¶24

in the meantime, an another SubRegistrar office i.e. Sub-Registrar, Saintala has been opened and the area, in respect of which, the land sought to be registered i.e. Mouza-Dhanput has been taken out from the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh to the jurisdiction of newly opened SubRegistrar, Saintala. For which, it is not possible on his part to register the deed in respect of the properties of Mouza-Dhanput, as the jurisdiction of that area has been taken out from his jurisdiction.

¶25

5. The aforesaid show-cause affidavit submitted by the alleged contemnor for his exoneration from registering the deed for sale of the Petitioners in spite of the directions of this Court in the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 is not acceptable under law.

¶26

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a Full Bench decision of this Court:-

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

In the matter of District Judge, Puri reported in 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.) that,

¶29

When, after the institution of a suit, the area containing the disputed property transferred out of its local jurisdiction— Held, the Original Court retains the jurisdiction.

¶30

6. When, it has been clarified by this Court in the above

¶31

Full Bench decision that, even after taking the area out of the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh in respect of the properties sought to be registered, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, who was having his original jurisdiction, he retains its power to deal with the registration and as on the date of passing of the order by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh had the jurisdiction to register the deed in respect of which, direction was given by this Court, then at this juncture, there is no impediment under law for the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh to implement the directions made by this Court in the order of W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024.

¶32

For which, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh is to implement the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27043 of 2024 immediately.

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

7. On the basis of the aforesaid clarifications, this contempt

¶35

petition is dropped and disposed of.

¶36

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶37

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 17.03.2026// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer