IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29062 of 2025 Sayed Md. Ishaque @ Bismillah Khan … Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash Sr. Advocate with Ms. P. Mohanty, Adv. -Versus - State of Odisha and others … Opp.Parties Mr. A.R. Dash, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 06.04.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Notice on opposite party No.3 has been validly served but there is no appearance. The matter is therefore, taken up for hearing. 3. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner’s application for registration of the sale deed executed by him in favour of opposite party No.3 was refused by the Registering Officer, Talcher vide order dated 18.08.2025 on the ground of lack of identification of the petitioner. Perusal of the order reveals that the petitioner’s name has been mentioned differently in different documents such as, Aadhar card, PAN card, and Voter ID card as also the ROR. As such, the Registering Officer refused to register the documents. Order No. 03. 5. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned Senior Counsel submits that the question of identity of the petitioner has been settled by the judgment passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Angul in T.R. No. 36/2010 where a sale transaction executed by the petitioner in respect of a portion of the very same land was called in question on the ground of impersonation. However, he was acquitted in the said case. According to Mr. S. Dash therefore, no further doubt remains as regards identity of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State submits that the judgment of the Vigilance Court was never placed before the Registering Officer. Since it is a factual aspect, it is for the Registering Officer to apply his judicial mind to the materials placed by the parties and take a decision thereof. 7. Considering the facts and the submission made, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be relooked by the Registering Officer, particularly taking note of the judgment passed by the Vigilance Court, wherein a similar issue relating to the identity of the petitioner was decided. This Court would hasten to add that it is for the Registering Officer to consider as to if the finding of the Vigilance Court can have any bearing on the issue involved. This Court has not expressed any opinion either way on the same. 8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Registering Officer, Talcher to consider the prayer for registration of the sale deed in question afresh after taking note of the judgment of the Vigilance Court referred above as also any other materials/evidence that the petitioner may furnish with regard to his identity. A final decision be taken after affording opportunity of hearing to all considered and necessary orders shall be passed within four weeks from today on production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. (Sashikanta Mishra) A.K. Rana Judge Designation: P.A.