Orissa High Court
Siddharth Shastri vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 18 September, 2023
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 23360 OF 2023
Siddharth Shastri .... Petitioners
Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. Alok Kumr Panda, Advocate
(For Opp. Party No. 3)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.09.2023 3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Orders dated 15th December, 2022 and 4th July, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh- Opposite Party No.2 in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2023 are under challenge in this writ petition, whereby transfer of Plot No.48/1762 in Khata No.386/124 to an extent of Ac.1.18 decimals corresponding to Chaka Khata No.255, Plot No.48(p) further corresponding to M.S. Khata No.58, Plot No.22(p). of mouza Brahmachari under Bargarh Tahasil in the district of Bargarh (for short 'the case land') has been blocked. The District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh vide order dated 4th July, 2023 refused the prayer to recall the order dated 15th December, 2022.
3. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although a civil suit in respect of the case land in C.S. No. 99 of 2014 is pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh, but no restraint order has yet been passed in the said Page 1 of 3 // 2 // suit. Thus, there was no occasion on the part of Opposite Party No.2 to block the registration of the case land, more particularly when no sale deed has yet been presented for registration. It is only on the allegation of Opposite Party No.3, such an order has been passed. Subsequently, the District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh also refused to recall the said order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
3.1 Mr. Bose, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5250 of 2023 (Duryodhan Mantri and others -v- State of Odisha and others) in which similar such situation had arisen and this Court remitted the matter to the Sub-Registrar, Jagatpur for fresh consideration. He, therefore, submits that when there is no restraint order passed by any competent authority/Court of law, the District Sub- Registrar, Bargarh should not have blocked the plot from registration.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel by filing counter affidavit of District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh- Opposite Party No.2 in Court submits that since a civil suit is pending in respect of the case land and objection has been raised by Opposite Party No.3, the case land has been blocked from registration.
5. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 submits that since a civil suit is pending, allowing alienation of the case land would lead to multiplicity of litigations and harassment of Opposite Party No.3. Hence, the District Sub- Registrar, Bargarh has committed no error in blocking transfer of the case land and also refusing to recall the said order.
Page 2 of 3// 3 //
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that there is no restraint order passed by any competent authority/Court of law restraining alienation of the case land. Thus, it prima facie appears that the District Sub- Registrar, Bargarh has acted illegally in blocking registration of alienation of the case land without conducting any enquiry under Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act').
7. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 15th December, 2022 and 4th July, 2023 (Annexure-1) are set aside and the District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh-Opposite Party No.2 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
8. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 are directed to appear before the District Sub-Registrar, Bargarh-Opposite Party No.2 on 3rd October, 2023 to receive further instruction in the matter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
bks Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 21-Sep-2023 10:44:58
Page 3 of 3