Bauri Behera vs. State Of Odisha

JUDGMENT 7th July, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Sub- Registrar, Khurda, refusing to register the sale deed presented by her, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition

issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 to show cause as to why the order dated 16.02.2026 under Annexure-3 passed by O.P. No.3 shall not be quashed and why a direction shall not be given to the O.P. No.3 to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on dated 13.02.2026 vide Application ID No.1082602237 under Anneuxre-2 within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and if the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 failed to show cause or show insufficient cause then the said rule be made absolute by quashing Annexure-3 with a further direction to the O.P. No.3 to register the sale deed presented by the petitioner on dated 13.02.2026 vide Application ID No.1082602237 under Annexure-2 within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.”

challenged in appeal under Section 72 of the said Act. Since alternative remedy is available, the Writ Petition should not be entertained. On merits, Mr. Dash would fairly submit that though the registering authority cannot go beyond the decree of the civil Court yet, in order to prevent any anomalous situation from arising, the petitioner should first get the property mutated in her name and then apply for registration.

The facts of the case are not disputed in any manner. From a copy of the judgment of the civil Court enclosed to the writ application, it can be seen that there was an agreement for sale between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 on 13.07.2007, which was held to be a valid agreement. The civil Court also took note of the lis pendens transaction and held that the sale deed executed thereby is not binding on the present Opposite Party No.4 and accordingly decreed the suit by directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the Opposite Party No.

facts, the sole question that arises for consideration in the Writ Petition is the legality of the impugned order refusing to register the sale deed only on the ground of the land being recorded in somebody else’s name. This is purely a question of law, wherein no disputed questions of fact are involved. Law is well settled that though ordinarily alternative remedy should be pursued yet, writ juri iction can be invoked in cases involving only questions of law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. V. E&TOCAA, 2 can be profitably referred to in this regard, wherein the following was observed:- “7. Not too long ago, this court in its decision reported in [2021] SCC Online SC 884 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited)* has reiterated the same principles in paragraph 11. 8.That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of U. P. v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.)** and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India v. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the High Court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of ; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this court found the issue raised by the appellant to be pristinely legal requiring determination by the High Court without putting the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is 2 (2023) 109 GSTR 402

that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available.”

In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court holds the Writ Petition maintainable despite existence of the statutory remedy of appeal.

“On a plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act, it is found that nowhere the provision requires production of Record-of-Rights in respect of the land transferred in the name of vendor or transferor. It simply requires production of the Record-of-Rights for satisfaction of the registering officer that such transferor has right, title and interest over the property so transferred. It is well settled that Record-of-Rights neither creates nor extinguishes title. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that interpretation of the provision under Sub-section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act assigned on behalf of the opposite parties is contrary to such settled principle of law is not unfounded. Moreover, it is rightly contended that such a narrow interpretation to the provision would be contrary to the provision under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act with regard to transfer of all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof forthwith. Title of the land passes upon valid execution of sale deed. Constitutional right conferred under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India has also to be given a meaningful interpretation to include right to deal with one's own property. In such circumstances, narrow interpretation of the provisions under Sub-Section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act by the opposite parties is unwarranted and not acceptable.”

3 (2026) 2 SCC 696

deed or lease in respect of land over 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 the registration charges/ fees are paid. The following observations of the Supreme Court may be profitably referred to. “18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect 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. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, 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.

..……..………………….

(Sashikanta Mishra),

Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 07th July, 2026 Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer