Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6916 (ORI)

Sauri Jena v. Sub-Registrar, Baranga

2025-05-13

Ananda Chandra Behera

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Opp. Party No.1 (Sub-Registrar, Baranga) to accept the sale deed of the petitioner and to register the same, because, the slot was booked on dated 03.05.2025 by the petitioner for registration of the sale deed before the Opp. Party No.1, but, when the petitioner presented his sale deed on dated 03.05.2025 for registration, the Opp. Party No.1 refused to accept the same expressing orally that, there is a status quo order in respect of the properties covered under the said sale deed, for which, he will not accept the same for registration . For which, without getting any way, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition praying for directing the Opp. Party No.1 to accept the sale deed, which was not accepted by the Opp. Party No.1 on dated 03.05.2025 and to register the same. 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned ASC for the State. 3. It is very fundamental in law that, Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive the sale deed for registration. He is bound to receive the same as per law, but, he can refuse to register the same if, the same is not legally permissible for registration. The Sub-Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority under law to refuse to accept any sale deed which is presented before him for registration. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the decision between M/s. Northeastern Infrastructure Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in 2025 (2) Civil Court Cases 220 (Andhra Pradesh) that, "Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive a document, which is presented for registration by the vendor. He is either to register the document, but if it is not legally fit for registration, then, to pass an order for refusal of its registration indicating the reasons for the same. " 4. Here in this matter at hand, when the sale deed was presented by the petitioner on dated 03.05.2025 before the Opp. Party No.1 for registration, then, it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar, Baranga (Opp. " 4. Here in this matter at hand, when the sale deed was presented by the petitioner on dated 03.05.2025 before the Opp. Party No.1 for registration, then, it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar, Baranga (Opp. Party No.1) to receive the same and to register the same and if the same was not fit under law to be registered, then, he (Opp. Party No.1) should have returned the same to the petitioner indicating the reasons for its refusal to register, but the Opp. Party No.1 has not done so. For which, there is no justification under law to allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner in order to direct the Opp.Party No.1 to accept the sale deed of the petitioner for registration. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 5. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed contest. 6. The Sub-Registrar, Baranga (Opp. Party No.1) is directed to accept/receive the sale deed of the petitioner, if, he (petitioner) presents the same before the Opp. Party No.1 along with the certified copy of this Judgment and to act upon the same immediately as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.