Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 7 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The petitioner (female landowner) filed a writ petition against the District Sub‑Registrar, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) and the State (Opposite Party No.2). Opposite Party No.4 is the buyer of the land.
  • Background: An agreement for sale dated 13 July 2007 between the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 stipulated a total consideration of Rs 53,00,000, of which Rs 17,10,000 was paid as advance on the same day. The agreement remained unregistered.
  • Subsequent Litigation: Opposite Party No.4 filed civil suit C.S. No.350 of 2009 before the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar. During the suit, the petitioner executed a separate sale deed on 30 January 2012 in favour of M/s Odisha Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd.
  • Civil Court Decree: On 19 December 2025 the civil court held the 2012 deed to be a lis pendens transaction and not binding on Opposite Party No.4. The court directed the petitioner to execute a sale deed in favour of Opposite Party No.4 as per the 2007 agreement.
  • Petitioner’s Action: The petitioner executed the required sale deed on 13 February 2026 and presented it for registration on the same day.
  • Registrar’s Order: The District Sub‑Registrar, Khurda, on 16 February 2026 refused registration, stating that the property was still recorded in the name of M/s Odisha Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd., and that the petitioner lacked title, interest, or right.
  • Procedural Note: No counter‑affidavit was filed by the State. On 1 July 2026 the court dispensed with notice to Opposite Party No.4 at the petitioner’s risk, as she claimed no relief against him.
  • Arguments: Counsel for the petitioner (Mr. S.M. Dwibedy) argued that once the civil court decreed specific performance, the registrar cannot refuse registration and cited Dhabal Prasad Pradhan v. State of Odisha. The State’s counsel (Mr. A.R. Dash) contended that the registrar’s order under Section 71 of the Registration Act could be appealed under Section 72, and suggested mutation of title before registration.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. E&TOCAA (Supreme Court) – writ jurisdiction for pure questions of law.
  • Dhabal Prasad Pradhan – Section 22‑A(2) of the Registration Act does not require production of Record‑of‑Rights of the vendor.
  • K. Gopi v. Sub‑Registrar (2026) – registering officer has no adjudicatory power to examine title; must register if procedural compliance is met.
  • Statutory Provisions: Section 22‑A(2) of the Registration Act, Section 71 & 72 of the Registration Act, Article 300‑A of the Constitution.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held the writ petition maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, as the issue was a pure question of law.
  • It concluded that the registrar could not refuse registration merely because the Record‑of‑Rights showed the land in another’s name; the civil decree supersedes the ROR.
  • The impugned order dated 16 February 2026 was set aside.
  • The registrar was directed to register the sale deed dated 13 February 2026 in favour of Opposite Party No.4 within three days of the judgment.

Topics: Property Registration, Civil Court Decree Enforcement