High CourtsSingle Bench

Babula Sahu And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 22 September 2025 · Citation: (2025) 09 OHC CK 0874

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ananda Chandra Behera, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227 · Indian Registration Act, 1908, — Section 71
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 23918 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 379 words

Ananda Chandra Behera, J

1.

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal(Opposite Party No.4) to register the deed for sale of the petitioners, which was presented by them (petitioners) before the Opposite Party No.4 on dated 17.04.2025 on full payment of e-stamp duties, as, till yet, since 17.04.2025, the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal(Opposite Party No.4) is not registering the same, though the said deed for sale has been kept by the Opposite Party No.4.

2.

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

As per the provisions of law envisaged in Section 71 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal has no authority under law to retain the deed for sale with him for an indefinite period after its acceptance for registration without passing any order for non-registration of the same.

4.

For which, the retention of the deed for sale of the petitioners by the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal(Opposite Party No.4) with him since 17.04.2025 without registering the same and without passing any order under Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 is not inconformity with law.

5.

Therefore, necessary directions can be given to the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal(Opposite Party No.4), through this writ petition filed by the petitioners to Act upon the said deed for sale of petitioners(which has been kept by the Opposite Party No.4 with him since 17.04.2025), as per the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Registration Rules, on the very date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

6.

Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same is to be allowed.

7.

In the result, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.

8.

The District Sub-Register, Kandhamal(Opposite Party No.4) is directed to act upon the deed for sale(which was presented by the petitioners on dated 17.04.2025) on the very same day of production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners before him(Opposite Party No.4) as per Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Registration Rule, 1988.

9.

As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.