Facts
The Petitioners filed a contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, following the alleged non-implementation of an order dated 12.03.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 27043 of 2024
Source reference: p. 2, para 1In the original writ proceeding, the Court directed the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh (the Contemnor), to receive and process a sale deed for land located in Mouza-Dhanput in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the Orissa Registration Rules, 1988
Source reference: p. 2, para 1The Contemnor filed a show-cause affidavit asserting that he could not register the deed because the jurisdiction over Mouza-Dhanput had since been transferred to a newly opened Sub-Registrar office in Saintala
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 3-4Issues
Whether an administrative official is absolved from complying with a court direction if the territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter is transferred to another authority after the order was issued
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Law Applied
The Court applied Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in conjunction with the registration procedures under the Indian Registration Act, 1908
Source reference: p. 2, para 1It relied primarily on the legal principle established by the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in In the matter of District Judge, Puri, 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.), which holds that if the area containing a disputed property is transferred out of the local jurisdiction of a court or authority after the institution of a proceeding, the original body retains its jurisdiction to resolve the matter
Source reference: p. 4, para 5Reasoning
The Court found the Contemnor’s defense—that the creation of the Saintala Sub-Registry stripped him of the power to comply—legally untenable
Source reference: p. 3, para 5The Court reasoned that since the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, possessed original jurisdiction on the date the direction was issued (12.03.2025), he "retains its power" to deal with the registration despite the subsequent boundary change
Source reference: p. 4, para 6By applying the precedent from the District Judge, Puri case, the Court concluded that there was no legal impediment preventing the Contemnor from executing the Court's specific mandate regarding Mouza-Dhanput
Source reference: p. 4, para 6Holding
The Court held that the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, remains legally obligated to implement the directions of the High Court immediately
Having clarified that the Contemnor retains jurisdiction for the purpose of the existing Court order, the Court dropped the contempt proceedings and disposed of the petition
Source reference: p. 5, para 7Original Court PDF
AGE TANDIvsGIRISH CHANDRA DHARUA, SUB REGISTRAR, TITILAGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in