Registering officers cannot adjudicate title or internal society authority once statutory registration requirements are satisfied.

The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 6 December 1947, purchased the disputed land through its Secretary and subsequently obtained mutation and conversion of the land.

The society’s governing body appointed its present Secretary and allegedly authorised him to alienate the society’s properties through resolutions dated 11 December 2022 and 21 June 2025.

A sale deed executed in favour of opposite party No. 6 on 7 January 2024 was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sambalpur, on 2 April 2026, after assessment and payment of stamp duty.

The Sub-Registrar refused registration by order dated 7 April 2026, citing deficiencies concerning the identity and authority of the society’s office-bearers, the society’s bye-laws and resolutions, alleged KVIC recognition, and proof of renewal and subsistence of the society’s registration.

The State opposed the writ petition on the ground that an alternative statutory appeal was available under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, and defended the refusal on the merits.

Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, where the dispute involved the registering officer’s statutory jurisdiction and powers.

Whether the Sub-Registrar could refuse registration on the grounds that the society had not established the identity, appointment or authority of its President and Secretary, produced its bye-laws or governing documents and resolutions, shown KVIC recognition for using the word “Khadi,” or proved renewal and subsistence of its registration.

Whether acceptance of the document for processing and payment of stamp duty and registration charges, followed by refusal on the stated grounds, was legally sustainable under the Registration Act and the Odisha Registration Rules, 1988.

The Court applied Sections 32–35 of the Registration Act, 1908, which regulate presentation of documents and require the registering officer to enquire into the appearance, identity and authority of the executant or authorised representative; where execution is admitted and statutory requirements are satisfied, Section 35(1) requires registration.

Section 22-A of the Odisha amendment permits refusal only in the specified categories, including transfers involving State or local-authority properties, certain religious or wakf properties, prohibited transfers, cancellation instruments without consent, and documents unsupported by the requisite record of rights.

Rules 25–29 of the Odisha Registration Rules, 1988 prescribe the sequential requirements for admissibility, endorsement of admissibility, payment of fees and endorsement of presentation.

The Court relied on Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. ETOCCA, (2023) 109 GSTR 402, for the principle that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where a pure question of law arises.

It further relied on K. Gopi v. Sub-Registrar, (2026) 2 SCC 696, holding that a registering officer has no adjudicatory power to determine the executant’s title and must register the document when the parties appear, admit execution and comply with procedural requirements; registration transfers only such rights as the executant actually possesses.

The same principle was followed in Bauri Behera v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No. 13487 of 2026, decided on 7 July 2026.

The Court held that the writ petition raised a pure question of statutory jurisdiction—whether the Registration Act authorised the Sub-Registrar to examine the society’s internal constitution, membership, quorum, continuing validity, KVIC recognition or the substantive authority of its office-bearers—and was therefore maintainable notwithstanding Section 72.

Under Sections 34 and 35 and Rule 25(ix), the registering officer could verify the identity of the person appearing and his authority to appear and execute the document, but could not undertake an adjudication of the society’s title, internal governance or legal validity beyond the matters contemplated by the statute.

The Court also found that the statutory sequence had not been followed: if the presenter’s authority or identity was deficient, the Sub-Registrar should have required satisfactory proof before proceeding; acceptance of the document and payment of stamp duty indicated that the admissibility requirements under Rule 25 had been treated as fulfilled.

None of the five stated deficiencies fell within the lawful grounds for refusal under the Act, and the State identified no statutory basis requiring KVIC recognition merely because the society’s name contained the word “Khadi.”

It directed the Registering Officer to register the sale deed presented on 2 April 2026 within one week from production of the certified copy of the judgment by the petitioner through its Secretary, subject to compliance with the remaining statutory requirements.