Odisha High Court: Registrars cannot refuse sale deeds by adjudicating the seller’s title or transfer rights

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of the scheduled property under a registered sale deed dated 12 January 2004.

After agreeing to sell it to Opposite Party No. 4, she presented a sale deed for registration.

The Registering Authority refused registration, concluding that the petitioner lacked a transferable right in land recorded as “Pattadar” and of “Jungle Kisam”; the District Registrar dismissed her statutory appeal on similar grounds.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order, arguing that the authorities had exceeded their powers by deciding the nature and transferability of her title.

1. Whether the Registering Authority may refuse registration by adjudicating the executant’s title or the transferability of the property.

2. Whether the refusal was sustainable where the authorities relied on the land’s revenue classification and Government instructions, rather than a statutory ground for refusing registration.

Under the Registration Act, 1908, the registering officer’s role is to determine whether the statutory requirements for registration are met, not to adjudicate the executant’s title or right to transfer the property.

The Court applied K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, (2026) 2 SCC 696, which holds that registration cannot be refused merely because the executant may lack title, provided procedural requirements and applicable fees are met.

The Court also noted that the instrument must be examined for compliance with relevant statutory provisions, including Section 22-A of the Registration Act as amended in Odisha and Section 34.

It referred to Article 300-A of the Constitution in recognising the effect of the authorities’ action on the petitioner’s right to property.

It referred to Gargi Dash & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2026 (II) OLR 368, concerning the revenue-classification reasoning.

The Registering Authority and District Registrar had determined that the petitioner’s land was non-transferable based on its revenue record and Government instructions.

The Court held that this was an adjudicatory inquiry outside their statutory function: their task was to assess compliance with registration requirements, not to determine title or transferability.

Since refusal could rest only on grounds recognised by the Registration Act, the authorities’ reliance on the land’s classification could not sustain the impugned orders.

The Court therefore did not examine the merits of the authorities’ findings on the land’s status or the original lease.

It set aside the impugned order and directed the Registering Authority to register the sale deed already presented within three days of production of a certified copy of the judgment.