Babula Sahu & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others

Ananda Chandra Behera, J

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for directing the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal (O.P. No.4) in the district of Kandhamal to accept the deed of sale of the petitioners for registration, because, the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal (O.P. No.4) orally refused to receive that deed for sale for registration expressing that, the co-sharers of the petitioners in the properties to be sold through the deed for sale have not signed and they have not given their consent for sale.

Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

The law is very much clear that, the District Sub-Registrar cannot orally refuse to receive any document, when the same is presented for registration. He/she is either to register the document or to refuse to register the same indicating the reasons for non-registration, if that document 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 District Sub-Registrar to receive the same, but if the said document is not in compliance with the provisions of law, the District Sub-Registrar may refuse to accept that document for registration assigning the reasons in writing about the same.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a decision 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) and in a case between Antaryami Nayak Vs. State of Odisha & Others in WP(C) No.18548 of 2025 decided on 11.07.2025 that,

“the Sub-Registrar/Registrar, cannot orally refuse to receive the document and would consider the fitness of it for registration or otherwise. Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908 empowers the Registration Authorities to receive a document which is presented for registration and process the same.

Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 provides inherent right/power to co-sharers of a joint property like the petitioners to transfer/alienate their undivided shares in their joint property without the consent of their other co-sharer or co-sharers and the Sub-Registrar has no power to refuse to receive the sale deed, if presented for registration by co-sharers like the petitioners in this matter at hand even if the said deed for sale is executed without the consent and signatures of their other co-sharers as vendors with the petitioners.

The land owners have their inherent right as per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 to alienate their interest in the joint and undivided properties. Any instruction or circular issued by the Government cannot prohibit the land owners (those are the masters of their land) from alienating their shares and interest therein even without the consent and signatures of their co-owners (co-sharers). Because, any circular or notification of the Government contrary to the statutory provisions cannot nullify the statutory rights of the land owners to alienate/transfer their undivided interest in the joint and undivided properties.

On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C) No.4340 of 2025 wherein it has been held that,

As per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, co-sharers/co-owners have their inherent right to alienate their shares/interests in the Joint and Undivided properties to the extent of their share. Therefore, even there will be any sale of specific portion of land in the joint and undivided properties by co-owners of the same indicating boundaries thereof, still then, the said transfer/sale would be deemed as a transfer of share of the vendor in the said joint and undivided property. Any executive instruction or circular issued by any authority including Government contrary to the statutory law envisaged under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 restricting co-owners/co-sharers to alienate their undivided shares/interests in their joint and undivided property shall be deemed as non-est. Because, executive instructions and circulars have no applicability where statutory law governs the field.

So, by applying the propositions of law clarified in the ratio of the above decisions and also taking the Rule 147 of The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 into account, it is felt proper to dispose of this writ petition finally directing District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal (O.P. No.4) to receive the deed for sale of the petitioners for alienation of their shares in the plots covered in their deed for sale without indicating the sale of any specific portion of the said plot and without indicating the boundaries thereof, but only indicating the alienation of their shares/interests therein.

On presentation of the said deed for sale of the petitioners annexing the certified copy of this Judgment, the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal (O.P. No.4) shall act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988 in accordance with the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision between Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Odisha & Others decided on 03.04.2025 in WP(C) No.4340 of 2025.

If the said deed is registered, then, after registration of the same, the District Sub-Registrar, Kandhamal (O.P. No.4) shall return that sale deed to the petitioners 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.

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is disposed of finally