Sabyasachi Mandal And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others

B.P. Routray, J

Heard Mr. D. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. T.K. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties 1 to 5.

The Petitioners have prayed for a direction for registration of the sale deed presented by their vendor on 28.07.2025 to the Sub-Registrar, Jatni.

The case of the Petitioners is that, they are the intending purchasers of Plot No.769/2827 in Khata No.384/680 of mouza-Uttramunda Muhana measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals. The owner of the plot in question is namely, Jasoda Sahoo, and she is the recorded owner of the land as per the RoR at Annexure-1. After the negotiation was completed and the sale deed executed by Jasoda Sahoo in favour of the Petitioners, it was presented on 28.07.2025 before the Sub-Registrar, Jatni (Opposite Party No.5). The same was accepted on the same day for verification and subsequently the Petitioners were intimated that the registration of the sale deed could not be possible for the reason that the vendor of Jasoda Sahoo has sold the same land to Jasoda beyond the extent of land in the original plot.

Opposite Party No.5 has filed its counter stating that, the vendors of Jasoda Sahoo, namely, Urmila Swain and others, who were the original recorded owner of the corresponding Plot No.769 under Khata No.23, have sold Plot No.769 measuring area Ac.0.500 decimals to many persons and out of them, Jasoda Sahoo, who is the last purchaser, has purchased the land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals. Before selling the land to Jasoda Sahoo, her vendors had already sold more than Ac.0.500 decimals to several other persons and therefore, her vendors did not have such property left in their favour to sell it to Jasoda. In other words, according to Opposite Party No.5, since the vendors of Jasoda had no more land within their share to sold, such extent of land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals sold in favour of Jasoda Sahoo is illegal being beyond the share of her vendors. The list of persons purchased such extent of lands from Plot No.769 from the vendors of Jasoda Sahoo have been mentioned in the counter affidavit at paragraph 8 to demonstrate that the total land sold is Ac.0.507 decimals, which is Ac.0.0072 decimals more than the extent of land in Plot No.769.

The Petitioners have filed their rejoinder to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.5 mentioning that, the name of the person as Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe, who is stated to have purchased Ac.0.058 decimals, his purchase of land to such extent has been subsequently cancelled and thus by counting such extent of land, Opposite Party No.5 has committed mistake in computing the total extent of land. According to the Petitioners, the land measuring area Ac.0.058 decimals sold to Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe has been subsequently cancelled and therefore, such extent of land still remained with the vendors of Jasoda Sahoo thereby validating the sale in favour of Jasoda Sahoo subsequently. But Opposite Party No.5 has mentioned it wrongly to say that the vendors of Jasoda Sahoo had no surplus land to sale to Jasoda Sahoo.

Upon hearing both parties, it is found admitted that, the sale deed executed in favour of Jasoda Sahoo was in the year 2010. Jasoda Sahoo purchased an extent of land measuring area Ac.0.054 decimals out of Plot No.769 in Khata No.23 from Urmila Swain and others vide Sale Deed dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure-10). After purchase of the land from her vendors, Jasoda mutated the same in her favour and the RoR in Plot No.769/2827 in Khata No.384/680 was accordingly carved in favour of Jasoda Sahoo and the land was recorded in Kissam Gharabari. Jasoda Sahoo was in peaceful possession of the same and ultimately as per the direction of the Tahasildar, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Janla which was forwarded to the Sub-Registrar through the Tahasildar stating that the land is still vacant recorded in the name of Jasoda Sahoo, wife of Bijay Kuamr Sahoo. From such enquiry report as well as the Record of Right prepared in the name of Jasoda Sahoo, it is thus established that she is in peaceful possession of the land till date of proposed sell. When the RoR stands recorded in the name of Jasoda Sahoo and she is in possession of the land in question, she executed the sale deed with present Petitioners for due consideration amount and then sale deed was presented before Opposite Party No.5 for registration. Therefore, when the document is presented for registration as per the Indian Registration Act, the authority liable for registration is to verify the requirements in terms of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act.

The provisions contained in the Indian Registration Act authorizes the Sub-Registrar to look into such aspects as to fulfil the enquiry for registration of the document presented. Section 34, deals with the scope of enquiry by the Registering officer before the acceptance of document for registration. Section 35 pertains to the procedure to be followed on admission or refusal of registration of document. Section 34(1) provides that subject to the provisions contained in Part-VI and in Sections 41, 43, 45, 69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under the said Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents duly authorized, appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation under Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, subject to such provisions. Sub-section (3) to Section 34 provides that the Registering Officer shall, thereupon enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed and satisfy himself to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document.

In Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P. Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210, Hon'ble Supreme Court have explained that,

"27. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 imposes three obligations upon the registering officer. These obligations are:

(i) To enquire whether or not such document was executed by the person by whom it is claimed to have been executed;

(ii) To satisfy himself as to the identity of the person appearing before him and claiming to have executed the document;

(iii) To satisfy himself about the right of any person appearing as a representative, assign or agent, to so appear;

xx xx xx

What is covered by Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) is something different from what is covered by Section 34(3). While Section 32(c) read with Section 33(1) speaks about the entitlement of the person to present a document for registration, Section 34(3) speaks about the enquiry to be conducted and the satisfaction to be arrived at by the registering officer. Section 34(3)(c) imposes an obligation on the registering officer to satisfy himself about the right of a person appearing as a representative, assign or agent. .. ..

xx xx xx

Actually, the registration of a document comprises of three essential steps among others. They are:

(i) execution of the document, by the executant signing or affixing his left hand thumb impression;

(ii) presenting the document for registration and admitting to the registering authority the execution of such document; and

(iii) the act of registration of the document.

xx xx xx

The third step, namely, the act of registration, is something that the registering authority is called upon to do statutorily. While the executant of the document and the person claiming under the document (claimant) are the only actors involved in the first two steps, the registering officer is the actor in the third step. Apart from the third step which is wholly in the domain of the registering authority, he may also have a role to play in the second step when a document is presented for registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second step is that of verification of the identity of the person presenting the document for registration.

Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration are substantial in nature, with the parties to the document playing the role of the lead actors and the registering authority playing a guest role in the second step. The third step is procedural in nature where the registering authority is the lead actor."

In the given facts of the instant case, the ownership of the land in favour of the vendor of the Petitioners is never disputed. It is not the case that the title of the vendor of the Petitioners is in cloud or questioned by someone else. The RoR in respect of the scheduled land depicts the name of vendor of the Petitioners as the recorded owner and in addition to the same, the enquiry report of the Tahasildar, which is submitted to the Sub-Registrar, clearly reveals that the land is vacant where the vendor of the Petitioners is the owner and the Kissam of land is Gharabari. Jasoda Sahoo, the proposed vendor of the Petitioners, purchased the land since 2010 and subsequently converted the same in her favour without recording any kind of dispute.

As stated above, the Registering Authority has no power to verify or ascertain as to whether the executant of the document has title to the property which is sought to be dealt with under the document presented for registration. Any enquiry by the Registering Authority in the matter of title of the property which is the subject matter of the document presented for registration would be beyond the jurisdiction and powers of such authority. The executant of the document is, in no way, answerable to the Registering Authority relating to the title of the property which is the subject matter of the document presented by him for registration. Any refusal for registration of the document by the Registering Authority on the ground of absence of title to such property to the executant or on account of any defect in his title to such property would be per se illegal act on the part of Registering Authority. Thus, in such situation, there would not be any scope on the part of the Sub-Registrar to object registration of the sale deed on the ground that the vendors of vendor of the Petitioners did not have enough land to sale in favour of Jasoda Sahoo taking recourse to sale transactions conducted prior to 2010. Moreover, it is the specific case of the Petitioners that, sale of land mentioned in favour of one Bhagaban Dagduji Trivukhe to the extent of Ac.0.058 decimals is not a valid one and deemed to be cancelled subsequently. If this will be taken into account, then it amounts to an error committed on the part of the Sub-Registrar to opine that excess land out of the extent in Plot No.769 has been sold to Jasoda Sahoo.

In view of such discussions, the writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Party No.5 is directed to accept the proposed sale deed presented, if any, along with a certified copy of this order within a period of forty-five days from today and shall do the needful for registration of the same.