Utkal Khadi Mandal Sale Deed Registration Ordered

Authority: High Court of Odisha at Cuttack

Order Date: 25 August 2026

Parties: petitioner – Utkal Khadi Mandal (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 06‑12‑1947); opposite parties – State of Odisha and others.
Background: The society, created to promote Khadi industries, purchased land (Hal Plot No.29/1059, Khata No.290/112, 0.28 acre) in Mouza‑Dhanakauda, Sambalpur District on 19‑02‑1972. Mutation was allowed and rent paid to the Government. The society obtained conversion under Section 8A of the Odisha Land Revenue Act on 15‑10‑2015.
Authority to Alienate: The governing body passed a resolution on 11‑12‑2022 appointing a Secretary with authority to alienate society property; a similar resolution was passed on 21‑06‑2025.
Sale Deed: The society executed a sale deed on 07‑01‑2024 in favour of opposite party No.6 (the vendee). The deed was presented for registration before the Sub‑Registrar, Sambalpur on 02‑04‑2026; stamp duty was assessed and deposited.
Refusal: On 07‑04‑2026 the Sub‑Registrar issued an order refusing registration, citing five deficiencies:

1. No documentary proof of the President’s identity, appointment or authority authorising the Secretary.

2. Absence of the society’s by‑laws or governing documents establishing the managing body’s powers.

3. No resolution of the governing body authorising execution of the deed.

4. Lack of KVIC (Khadi and Village Industries Commission) recognition for the use of “Khadi” in the society’s name.

5. No evidence of the society’s continued registration or renewal since its 1947 establishment.

Relief Sought: The petitioner sought a rule nisi, quashing of the 07‑04‑2026 letter, and an order directing immediate registration of the deed.
State’s Stand: The State argued the writ was not maintainable because an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act is available, and that the Secretary’s authority was unproven; it contended the deficiencies were valid and that stamp duty payment alone does not compel registration.
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel Ms. Deepali Mahapatra argued the writ is maintainable as it raises a pure question of law, and that once statutory requirements and fees are satisfied the registering officer cannot refuse registration.
State’s Submissions: Counsel Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty maintained that payment of stamp duty does not obligate registration when the officer identifies deficiencies, especially regarding the Secretary’s authority.

The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy (appeal under Section 72) does not bar a writ when a pure question of law is involved, citing Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. E & TOCCA.
The central legal question: whether the Registering Officer may refuse registration on the grounds raised in the impugned order.

Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 require the officer to ensure the persons executing the document appear and admit execution; if satisfied, registration must follow.
Odisha Amendment Section 22‑A allows refusal only for specific categories of immovable property (State, local authority, religious institutions, Wakf, etc.) and requires a sanction from a competent authority.
Odisha Registration Rules, 1988 (Rules 25‑29) prescribe conditions of admissibility, fee receipt, and endorsement before registration can proceed.
The Court observed that payment of stamp duty implies satisfaction of Rule 25 conditions; therefore the officer should have sought proof of authority before demanding duty, not refused registration after duty was paid.
The deficiencies cited by the Sub‑Registrar (lack of President’s authority, by‑laws, resolution, KVIC recognition, society’s renewal) are not powers conferred on the officer under the Act or Rules.
Precedent K. Gopi v. Sub‑Registrar (2026 2 SCC 696) was quoted, stating the registering officer has no adjudicatory power to question title or authority once procedural compliance is met.
The Court also referenced Bauri Behera v. State of Odisha (2026) for the same principle.

The impugned order of refusal is legally untenable; the Registering Officer exceeded statutory authority.

The writ application is allowed.
The order dated 07‑04‑2026 refusing registration is set aside.
The Sub‑Registrar is directed to register the sale deed already presented by the petitioner within one week from the date the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment, subject to compliance with any remaining statutory requirements.

Topics: Registration Law; Society Property Transfer