BIDYARANI DAS vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C). No. 26426 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010628812026
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)


Bidyarani Das ...… Petitioner

-Versus-

State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
_____________________________________________

For Petitioner : Mr. , Senior Advocate with
S.K. Dash
Ms. P. Mohanty, Advocate,
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N Patnaik , Additional
Government Advocate

__________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

JUDGMENT
th
16 October, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The order passed by the District Registrar, Khordha,
the appellate authority, in confirming the order passed by
the Registering Authority refusing to register the sale
deed presented by the petitioner is under challenge in
this writ application.

Page 1 of 8

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of the
schedule property, having purchased the same from its
recorded owner namely, M/s- Aryans Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 12.01.2004. In order to
meet the medical expenses of her treatment as well as of
her husband, she decided to sell the land and building to
the present Opposite Party No.4 by executing an
agreement on 26.01.2026. She received the total
consideration amount and sought to register the sale
deed which was not accepted by the Registering Officer.
She moved this Court in W.P.(C). No. 18345 of 2025,
which was disposed of on 15.07.2025 directing the
Registering Authority to receive the sale deed and to act
in accordance with law. The sale deed was presented on
12.08.2025 but was refused to be registered by the
Registering Authority by order dated 19.07.2025 on the
ground that the petitioner has no right to transfer the
land. The petitioner moved this Court again in W.P.(C).
No. 33522 of 2025. By order dated 29.01.2026, this Court
relegated the petitioner to the forum of appeal under
Section 72 of the Registration Act. The petitioner

Page 2 of 8

thereafter, preferred appeal being Appeal No. 3 of 2026
before the District Registrar. By order dated 29.07.2026,
the appeal was dismissed mainly on the ground that the
Satwa of the land was recorded as Pattadar which does
not give a transferable right to the landholder and
secondly, the land is of ‘Jungle Kisam’. Said order is
impugned in the present writ application.
3. The State has filed counter affidavit, inter alia,
justifying the impugned orders by referring to
Government instruction vide letter dated 19.06.2025 and
02.07.2025. It is stated that the Government has
instructed not to allow transfer of land recorded as
Pattadar . The nature and transferability of the land falls
within the domain of the competent revenue authority,
which is to be followed by the Registering Authority. On
examination of the instrument, the Registering Authority
as well as the appellate authority found that allowing its
registration would contravene the Government
instructions for which it was rightly refused to be
registered.

Page 3 of 8

4. Heard Mr. S.K.Dash, learned Senior counsel with
Ms. P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned AGA for the State.
5. The first plank of argument of Mr. Dash, learned
Senior counsel is that the impugned orders are product of
adjudication by the concerned authorities, a power they
do not possess. Entering into the question of status of the
land and the transferability of the petitioner's title is
entirely beyond the domain and competence of the said
authorities. Even otherwise, law has been settled by this
Court recently that changing the nature of the land from
Stitiban to Pattadar or from Dakhalsatwa Sunya to
Pattadar on the basis of administrative instructions is not
permissible. Mr. Dash, further submits that the
Government has itself laid down, by way of guidelines in
1990, that all such lands recorded as Dakhalsatwa
Sunya are to be recorded as Stitiban , with full heritable
and transferable rights.
6. Mr. Patnaik, learned State counsel seeks to counter
the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner by
submitting that the registering authority cannot allow

Page 4 of 8

registration of land which by its nature, is non-
transferable. Since the Government circulars prohibits
such transfers, the registering authorities rightly refused
to register the document.

7. This Court has carefully perused the order of
refusal passed by the registering authority on 19.08.2025
and the order of confirmation in appeal passed by the
District Registrar-cum-appellate authority on 29.07.2026.
Both the orders, on the face of it, are unsustainable in
law for the simple reason that both are products of
adjudication. Refusal to register a document can only be
on grounds provided in the Indian Registration Act.
Secondly, there is a fundamental distinction between
transfer of land and registration of instrument of such
transfer. The Registrar is concerned with the latter, not
the former. This subtle yet potent distinction must be
kept in mind before proceeding further. What both the
authorities have attempted is to thwart the process of
transfer which undoubtedly affects a citizen’s right to
property as provided under Article 300-A of the
Constitution. Of course, it has been done in the garb of

Page 5 of 8

refusing registration but the effect is the same. In the oft-
quoted judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.
1
Gopi v. Sub-Registrar , it was held as follows:
“ 18. The registering officer is not concerned with the title
held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to
decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an
executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a
land in respect of which he has no title, the registering
officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the
procedural compliances are made and the necessary
stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid.
We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908
Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or
registering authority to ascertain whether the vendor
has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer.”

8. As is evident, the Supreme Court has gone to the
extent of holding that registration of a document cannot
be refused even if a person does not possess title over the
property, the document in relation to which is sought to
be registered. Needless to mention, the Registering
Authorities have no power to embark upon an
adjudicatory exercise to examine whether the executant
of the document in question has transferable right or not.
Of course, this Court would hasten to add that the
document must still be examined to ascertain whether
any of the relevant statutory provisions, including Section
22-A of the Registration Act, as amended in Odisha, and

1

(2026) 2 SCC 696

Page 6 of 8

Section 34, have been violated and whether all statutory
formalities have been complied with. Save and except the
above, the registering authority cannot adjudicate upon
the matter by arrogating to itself the powers of a civil
Court.
9. Having held as above, it is not necessary to
examine the correctness of the findings rendered by both
authorities below. However, this Court would observe in
passing that even otherwise, the reasoning adopted by
them no longer stands in view of the ruling of this Court
recently in the case of Gargi Dash & Ors. v. State of
2
Odisha & Ors. .
10. So, only because the Tahasildar corrected the ROR
of the petitioner from Stitiban to Pattadar basing on an
executive instruction, it does not take away her
transferable title over the property. As regards the issues
raised with regard to validity of the lease granted to the
original lessee, this Court can only observe that these are
matters falling outside the purview of the registering
authorities. The appellate authority has also gone on to

2
2026 (II) OLR-368

Page 7 of 8

hold that recording of the Kisam of the land as Baje
Fasal-II instead of Jungle is not appropriate. This Court
can only wonder from where the appellate authority
derived the power to decide so.

11. Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis of facts,
law and the discussions made, this Court is satisfied that
the impugned orders cannot stand the test of law.
Resultantly, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The Registering Authority is
directed to register the sale deed already presented by the
petitioner within three days from the date of production of
certified copy of this order by the petitioner.


……..…………………..
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge







Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dt. 16 October, 2026/Deepak

Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,Cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 18:47:35
Signature Not Verified

Page 8 of 8