p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.730 of 2026 (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Ramakanta Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Another …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Jayanta Kumar Majhi, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing and Judgment :09.01.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for directing the Sub-Registrar, Gop (O.P. No.2) to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) of the petitioner for registration, because the O.P. No.2 orally refused to receive the same expressing that, there is complain before him by someone for non-receiving the said deeds (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) for registration. For which, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for directing the O.P. No.2 to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) of the petitioner for registration. Page 2 of 6 2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC for the State. 3. The law is very much clear that, the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration in spite of any complain by someone for non-receiving the same and in spite of pendency of any civil suit in respect of the land covered in the deed or deeds for sale. The Sub-Registrar is either to register the document/deed after receiving it or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if for any reason under law, the said document/deed is not legally fit for registration. According to The Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988, when a document is presented for registration, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar/District Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but if the same is not fit for registration as per law, the Sub- Registrar/District Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same. 4. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between North East Infrastructure Private Limited and Ors. Vrs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2025 (2) Civ.C.C.220 (Andhra Pradesh) that, the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive any document presented for registration, but after receiving, he/she will consider, whether the same is legally fit for registration or not, because Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that, the p. 3 Sub-Registrar is to receive a document, which is presented for registration and if, the same is fit for registration, he/she shall register that deed as per the Registration Act, 1908 and Rules thereof and if the same is not compliance with the provisions of law, he/she shall pass an order of refusal of registration in writing as indicated in Section 71 of the Registration Act. (ii) In a case between Bihar Deed Writers Association and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1989 (2) Civil Court Cases 172 (Patna) & 1988 SCC Online Patna 142 that, if the transferor does not have any title or has an imperfect title to the property, the transferee on transfer will either get no title or he will get an imperfect title. This will be to the prejudice of the transferee and is not of any concern to the registering authority. The registering authority is bound to register it. (Para 3) (iii) In a case between K.Gopi Vrs. The Sub- Registrar and others reported in 2025 (III) Civ.L.J (SC) 575 (in Para No.15) that, The registering officer is not concerned with title held by the executant, because, he has no adjudicatory power to decide, whether the executant has any title. Even if, an executant executes a sale deed or a lease deed in respect of a land, of which, he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document, if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. Because, under the scheme of the registration Act, 1908, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain, whether the vendor has title to the property, which he is seeking to transfer. As, the execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title or interest in the property, the registered document cannot affect any transfer. Page 4 of 6 (iv) In a case between Rakhal Chandra Nayak Vrs. State of Odisha and others decided on 17.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23534 of 2025 (at Para No.10) that, the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a deed for sale on the ground of pendency of a civil suit in respect of the properties covered in the said deed for sale applying Section 52 of the T.P. Act, 1882. (v) In a case between Sarvajanik Jan Kalyan Parmarthik Nyas Vrs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 703 (Madhya Pradesh) that, refusal to register the sale deed on the ground that, a dispute about title is pending in the Civil Court. The Sub-Registrar has no authority to refuse to register a document on the ground that, the vendor/transferor has no title to the property in question and is not competent to execute the sale deed. Transferee would get the right, title and interest of his vendor/transferor, if its vendor succeeds in the litigation/suit. (vi) In a case between Jajati Keshari Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. reported in 2025 (I) OLR 936 that, the Sub-Registrar has no authority or jurisdiction to refuse the registration of the sale deed questioning the title of the properties covered under the sale deed. 5. When, in this matter at hand, the Sub-Registrar, Gop (O.P. No.2) refused to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) of the petitioner for registration on the ground of complain by someone for non- receiving the said deeds and when in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the Sub-Registrar like the O.P. No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to refuse to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) for registration either on the p. 5 ground of complain by someone for non-receiving the same or on the ground of mere pendency of a civil suit in respect of the properties covered under the deed for sale, then at this juncture, it is held that, the refusal of the Sub-Registrar (O.P. No.2) to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) from the petitioner for registration is not inconformity with law. For which, there is justification under law to direct the O.P. No.2 to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2) for registration through this writ petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 7. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 8. The Sub-Registrar, Gop (O.P. No.2) is directed to receive the deeds for sale (originals of Annexures-1 & 2), if presented by the petitioner annexing the certified copy of this judgment and to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988. If the said deeds are registered, then after registration, the O.P. No.2 shall return the sale deeds to the petitioner within 3 days of its registration after complying all the formalities thereof as per the Rule 100 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017 of I.G.R of Odisha. Page 6 of 6 9. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 09.01.2026//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer NAYAK Orissa, Cuttack 10:54:33 Signature Not Verified