The Orissa High Court reaffirms that Sub-Registrars have a statutory obligation under the Registration Act, 1908 to receive documents presented for registration and cannot refuse to do so orally or based on executive instructions, circulars, or presumptions about future intended uses of the property. This binding authority clarifies and upholds the legal position, ensuring stronger safeguards for landowners’ rights, and sets a significant precedent for all subordinate courts in Odisha.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/23934/2025 of KAMAL LOCHAN SETHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010607842025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice A.C. Behera) |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Odisha; strong persuasive value elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms statutory primacy of Registration Act, 1908 and constitutional property rights |
| Type of Law | Registration/Property Law; Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Sub-Registrar can lawfully refuse to receive property deeds for registration based on executive orders, circulars, or surmises about future uses. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought mandamus directing the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore to receive for registration gift deeds and a sale deed, which were orally refused on the ground that each deed pertained to transfer of over 500 sq. meters of property without prior approval per Rule 14 of Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 2025. The court examined the legal basis of such refusal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha; District Sub-Registrars and registering authorities within the state |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in analogous cases |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to even receive registration documents based on oral communications, government instructions, or anticipation of future land use.
- The only permissible basis for refusing registration must be communicated in writing, after the document is received, as per Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908.
- Executive instructions, circulars, or SOPs cannot override statutory rights or obligations under the Registration Act, 1908, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Article 300A of the Constitution.
- Landowners have an inherent right to alienate property; such right cannot be curtailed by surmises that the land might in future be used for prohibited purposes.
- The latest Odisha government SOP and notification explicitly allow registration of agricultural part plots, removing any prior regulatory ambiguity.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to challenge refusals by sub-registrars citing circulars, internal memos, or hypothetical future uses.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court applied the statutory scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, specifically Section 71, observing that the Sub-Registrar is duty-bound to receive documents presented for registration and any refusal must be done in writing.
- Oral refusal or refusal on the basis of instructions, circulars, or executive directions is impermissible, as statutory functions cannot be overridden by administrative orders.
- Cited North East Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AP HC), and repeated that the Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive documents.
- Discussed the inherent and absolute nature of the right to transfer property embedded in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
- Emphasized that no authority can curtail the right of alienation except as per statutory prohibitions, and not on the basis of surmises as to future use (per State of Uttarakhand v. Ravi Kumar).
- Considered several authorities on the supremacy of statute over executive instructions, including Supreme Court and High Court decisions (e.g., Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, Gopinath Sahu, State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava).
- Noted that the latest government notification (Resolution No.38270, 13 Oct 2025) and SOP explicitly allow for the registration of part plots of agricultural land.
- Held that in absence of any material showing that the current transfer is part of a real estate project, the Sub-Registrar’s refusal was not justified.
- Directed the Sub-Registrar by writ of mandamus to receive and process the deeds, and to return documents within 3 days of registration if formalities are completed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a writ mandating the Sub-Registrar to receive and register the deeds (gift and sale) which were being orally refused.
- Asserted that Rule 14 of Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025 does not apply to prevent registration of these deeds.
- Emphasized that the right to transfer property is inherent and cannot be curtailed based on conjecture about future use.
Respondent (State)
- Argued that transfer of more than 500 sq. meters of property needed prior approval per Rule 14 of the relevant Rules.
- Justified the refusal by referring to the potential future use of the land as real estate projects.
Factual Background
The petitioner executed gift deeds and a sale deed relating to more than 500 sq. meters each of property in favour of certain donees and a vendee. When these deeds were presented for registration before the District Sub-Registrar, Balasore, the Sub-Registrar orally refused to receive them, citing Rule 14 of the Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Second Amendment Rules, 2025, and the alleged need for prior approval due to the size of land being transferred. The petitioner challenged this refusal under Articles 226 and 227, contending that their statutory right to alienate property was being unlawfully curtailed.
Statutory Analysis
- Registration Act, 1908: Section 71 requires the Sub-Registrar to receive documents presented for registration; written refusal and reasons are required if the document is not fit for registration.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Inherent right of every landowner to transfer/alienate property.
- Constitution of India, Article 300A: Absolute right to property, including transfer, subject only to statutory limitations.
- Odisha Development Authorities (Planning and Building Standards) Rules, 2020 & 2025: Purpose is to improve business and facilitate certain types of development; Rule 14 cited by the authorities, but found not to justify refusal of registration absent concrete evidence of prohibited use.
- Executive Instructions/Circulars/SOPs: Held not to have statutory force or to lawfully override statutory rights and obligations; recent SOP and notification by Odisha government clarify permissibility of registration of agricultural part plots.
Procedural Innovations
- Affirmed through mandamus the requirement for Sub-Registrars to act strictly according to statutory processes, requiring written orders for refusal of registration.
- Set clear directive for prompt return of registered deeds within three days as per Rule 100 of Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 and Notification No.2915 dated 02.08.2017.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing statutory law on registrars’ duties and the inviolability of statutory property rights.