Questions of Title Should Not Be Adjudicated in Writ Proceedings: Orissa High Court

Refusal to Register Sale Deed Upheld Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence and Compliance with Section 22-A of Registration Act - In a recent landmark judgment, the High Court of Orissa set aside a previous order by a Single Judge mandating the registration of a sale deed for a disputed piece of land in Puri. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, emphasized the necessity of conclusive evidence for land title and adherence to statutory provisions under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

The appeals arose from an order dated December 10, 2021, by a Single Judge, which directed the District Sub-Registrar of Puri to register a sale deed executed in favor of the respondent, Manas Kumar Pradhan. The Sub-Registrar had initially refused registration citing the bar under Section 22-A of the Registration Act and issues related to the validity of the Power of Attorney used. The appellants included the State of Odisha and third parties claiming interest in the land, highlighting ongoing disputes over title and possession.

The court noted that the respondent failed to provide definitive proof that the vendors were the legitimate successors-in-interest to the original owners, as purportedly confirmed by a 1962 Supreme Court judgment. The bench pointed out that the genealogical evidence presented was insufficient to conclusively establish the vendors’ title to the disputed land.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act mandates that the registering officer must refuse to register any instrument transferring immovable property belonging to the State Government unless specific conditions are met. The court found that the registering authority’s refusal was justified, given the disputed land’s entry in the Record of Rights (RoR) in the name of the State Government. “The registering authority could not have registered the instrument against the statutory requirements,” the bench observed.

The court emphasized the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 77 of the Registration Act, which the respondent failed to exhaust. The bench clarified that while the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court, it typically refrains from intervening unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh stated, “The law is well settled that questions of title should not be adjudicated upon in the writ proceedings. We do not find any conclusive evidence on record based on which the learned Single Judge could have arrived at a definite finding that the vendors were the successors-in-interest of Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha.”

Justice Murahari Sri Raman added, “Section 22-A(1) of the Registration Act casts a statutory duty upon the registering authority not to register lands belonging to the State Government or local authority. The refusal to register the sale deed, in this case, was justified based on the entries in the RoR and the ongoing disputes.”

The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of following statutory provisions and establishing clear and undisputed title before proceeding with the registration of land deeds. By setting aside the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench reinforced the necessity for proper legal channels and remedies, particularly in complex land disputes. This judgment is likely to have significant implications for future cases involving land registration and title disputes in Odisha.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024