IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7880 of 2026 Rashmita Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 24.04.2026 02. 1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus may be pleased to set -aside the impugned cancellation deed dated 26.09.2011 vide Document No.11491101230 to be illegal, erroneous and further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to give full effect to the RSD No. 412 dated 28.04.2008 at Annexure-1;” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner clarifies to this Court that there is no specific provision under the Registration Act, 1908 for cancellation of the deed, as executed by the vendor of the Petitioner vide Document No.11491101230 on 26.09.2011, subsequent to the conveyance deed executed on 28.04.2008 in favour of the Petitioner by the Opp.Party No.3. 3. On the query being made by this Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 767, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issues raised therein, considered one of the questions which is relevant for adjudication of the case at hand. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:- “13. Having considered the rival submissions, including keeping in mind the view taken by the two learned Judges of this Court on the matters in issue, in our opinion, the questions to be answered by us in the fact situation of the present case, can be formulated as under: (a) xxx (b) Whether the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to declare the registered Deeds (between the private parties) as void ab initio and to cancel the same, especially when the aggrieved party (appellant) has already resorted to an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 before the competent Forum whilst questioning the action of the Society in cancelling the allotment of the subject plot in favour of the original allottee and unilateral execution of an Extinguishment Deed for that purpose? … 21. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan (supra). Section 17 of the Act of 1908 deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment Deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to Government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the Act of 1908 which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of registration offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered. 25. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Yanala Malleshwari (supra) was called upon to consider whether a person can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed and whether the Registering Officer like District Registrar and/or Sub-Registrar appointed by the State Government is bound to refuse registration when a cancellation deed is presented. The fact remains that if the stipulation contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1908 are fulfilled, the Registering Officer is bound to register the document. The Registering Officer can refuse to register a document only in situations mentioned in Sections such as 19 to 22, 32 and 35. At the same time, once the document is registered, it is not open to the Registering Officer to cancel that registration even if his attention is invited to some irregularity committed during the registration of the document. The aggrieved party can challenge the registration and validity of the document before the Civil Court. The majority view of the Full Bench was that if a person is aggrieved by the Extinguishment Deed or its registration, his remedy is to seek appropriate relief in the Civil Court and a Writ Petition is not the proper remedy. 26. Section 35 of the Act does not confer a quasi-judicial power on the Registering Authority. The Registering Officer is expected to reassure that the document to be registered is accompanied by supporting documents. He is not expected to evaluate the title or irregularity in the document as such. The examination to be done by him is incidental, to ascertain that there is no violation of provisions of the Act of 1908. In the case of Park View Enterprises (supra) it has been observed that the function of the Registering Officer is purely administrative and not quasi-judicial. He cannot decide as to whether a document presented for registration is executed by person having title, as mentioned in the instrument. We agree with that exposition.” 4. In light of the mandate of the provisions under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908, apparently it cannot be inferred that the act of registration of the cancellation deed by the Sub-Registrar is illegal, without a proper declaration being made by the Competent Civil Court. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, this writ Court, in the present form cannot go into the nitty-gritty of the fact with regard to the cancellation of the deed of registration so as to declare the sale to be illegal or erroneous. Accordingly, while the Writ Petition is disposed of being devoid of merit, the Petitioner is at liberty to move before the appropriate civil court seeking the voidability of the deed, if any, in accordance with law. 6. Needless to mention that the Petitioner came to know about the cancellation of the deed only after the EC was obtained, since the cancellation deed was executed unilaterally without notice to the Petitioner. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer