Orissa High Court
*** vs State Of Odisha & Others on 24 September, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WP(C) No.16105 of 2025
An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
***
M/s. Eastern Metal & Ferro Alloys Ltd.
... Petitioner.
-VERSUS-
State of Odisha & Others
... Opposite Parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Mr. P. S. Mohanty, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel.
(For the Opp. Party Nos.1,2 & 8) Mr. Ranjit Sahoo, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.5) Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, Sr. Advocate.
(For Opp. Party No.6) Mr. M. Kanungo, Senior Advocate.
Assisted by Mr. S. Das, Adv.
(For Opp. Party No.7) WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 1 of 11 P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA Date of Hearing : 12.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.09.2025 J UDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.--
1. This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner-
company praying for quashing the entry made by the Opp. Party No.2 (Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala) in Book No.1 vide Annexure-14 and the order of Mutation vide Annexure-17 passed in respect of the properties under Khata No.87 plot No.279 (after mutation) corresponding to Khata No.10.
2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition which prompted the petitioner-company for filing of the same is that, the petitioner company had incurred loan from several banks and financial institutions including the Opp. Party No.6. Due to non-payment of loans, a proceeding vide R.P. No.106/2006/CTC was initiated against the petitioner- company at the instance of Opp. Party No.6 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, (DRT) Cuttack and on the basis of the WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 2 of 11 order passed by the DRT, Cuttack in that R.C. No.106/2006/CTC, the secured properties of the petitioner- company for the loan were put to e-auction Sale and the date of such e-auction sale was fixed to 08.04.2024. In the said e- auction Sale of the secured properties of the petitioner- company, several persons including Opp. Party No.7 had participated, in which, the Opp. Party No.7 became the highest bidder and was eligible to purchase the auctioned properties. Accordingly, a Sale Certificate in respect of the auctioned properties was issued by the Opp. Party No.6 in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 on dated 09.04.2024 after receiving the money for the auctioned properties.
The petitioner being dissatisfied with the above e-auction Sale challenged to the same by filing S.A. No.44 of 2024 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack.
In the said S.A. No.44 of 2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack as per order dated 06.05.2024 directed the Opp. Party No.7 not to take the possession of the said properties till next date and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- within 30 days in two installments as WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 3 of 11 Rs.50,00,000/- in each and 1st installment should be on or before 05.06.2024 and 2nd Installment should be on or before 04.07.2024 and in failure of which, the said interim order shall stands vacated.
Accordingly, the petitioner deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 1st installment, but, the Opp. Party No.7 (purchaser of e- auction Sale) filed a Writ Petition vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.12905 of 2024 in this Court praying for directing the Sub- Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) to make entry of the Sale Certificate-cum-possession issued by the Opp. Party No.6 in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 in Book No.1 of its office.
3. Subsequent thereto, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.12905 of 2024 of the Opp. Party No.7 directing the Opp. Party No.7 to move the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for entering its Sale Certificate in Book No.1 and to consider the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks on production of the said order.
When, the petitioner-company approached Sub- Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for filing the copy of WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 4 of 11 its Sale Certificate in Book No.1, the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) entered that copy of the Sale Certificate in Book No.1 of its office.
On the basis of entry made in the Book No.1 by the Sub- Registrar, Dharmasala, the petitioner filed Mutation Case No.1803 of 2024 for correction of R.o.R of the properties covered under e-auction Sale Certificate, the same was rejected on dated 26.07.2024.
When, again the said Opp. Party No.7 filed another Mutation Case vide Misc. Case No.2/2024 for the said properties, the same was allowed on dated 03.09.2024 despite objection of the petitioner. For which, the said order for mutation passed on dated 03.09.2024 in favour of Opp. Party No.7 is illegal. Because, in spite of attachment order dated 31.03.2016 of the auctioned properties in Certificate Case No.1 of 2000 by the Collector, Jajpur, the Opp. Party No.2 illegally entered the disputed Sale Certificate in Book No.1.
Therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for quashing the entry of the Sale Certificate by the Opp. Party No.2 in Book No.1 vide Annexure-14 as well as the order of WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 5 of 11 Mutation passed on dated 03.09.2024 in Mutation Misc. Case No.2/2024 stating that, entry in Book No.1 has been made by the Opp. Party No.2 illegally and the order for mutation has been passed on dated 03.09.2024 illegally.
4. All the Opp. Parties contested the writ petition filed by the petitioner taking their stands that, the entry to the Sale Certificate of Opp. Party No.7 made in the Book No.1 vide Annexure-14 on being sent by the Opp. Party No.6 through Letter vide Annexure-11 is not illegal in any manner. For which, neither Anneuxre-14 nor Annexure-17 is liable to be quashed.
5. I have already heard from the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Opp. Party Nos.1,2 & 8, the learned Senior Counsels for the Opp. Party Nos.6 & 7 and the learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.5.
6. It has been envisaged in Section 89 (4) of the Indian Registration Act that, every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 6 of 11 registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1.
7. On conjoint reading to the Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 of the Registration Act, 1908, it is going to show that, "a copy of the Sale Certificate is to be forwarded by the Bank to the local Sub-Registrar after completion of sale through auction for filing of the said copy of the Sale Certificate in Book No.1 of the local registration office and the local Sub- Registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the Registration Office, for no other reason, but as per law, for preservation of a record relating to the said auction sale in the local Registration Office of the Government. Because, the filing of the copy of the Sale Certificate in the Book No.1 of the local Registration Office becomes the record in the local Registration Office of the Government." On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:
I. In a case between Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager & Authorized Officer, Canara Bank reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537 that, Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only requires the authorized officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the auction-purchaser with a copy WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 7 of 11 forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per S. 89 of the Registration Act.
II. In a case between Sri Balaji, represented by Its Partner D. Kavi Kumar Vs. I.G.R., Chennai & Others reported in 2024 (4) Civ.L.J 736 (Madras) that, SARFAESI Act, 2002 will not come under the purview of conveyance, since it is not a transfer inter vivos, it is a transfer by operation of law. III. In a case between Bank of Baroda, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Cuttack represented by its Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager at Sector 7 CDA, Cuttack Vs. District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack & Others reported in 2025 (1) OLR 919 that, when a copy of the Sale Certificate is forwarded to the local registration office, the local sub-registrar cannot refuse/deny for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the Registration office, for no other reason, but as per law, for preservation of a record relating to the concerned auction sale which would form the record in the local Registration Office of the Government. Sub-Registrar was directed to file the copy of the Sale Certificate in the Book No.1 of its office.
IV. In a case between State of Punjab & Another Vs. M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2025 Civ.L.J. 58 (SC) that, property sold by auction sale in favour of highest bidder--Effect--Title of such property passes to auction purchaser under Order XXI, Rule 92. Only Sale Certificate is required to be issued under Order XXI, Rule 94, which is merely formal declaration of his right. By such auction sale, no title is created or extinguished. As such, Section 17(1) is not attracted and registration of Sale Certificate under Section 17(2)(xii) is not required. Auction purchaser has only to send copy of Sale Certificate to Sub-Registrar under Section 89(4) for filing it in Book 1 as per Registration Act. Auction purchaser is not required to pay any stamp duty for the same. (Para Nos.13 to 20) A notification has already been issued by the Government of Orissa i.e. Government of Odisha, Revenue WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 8 of 11 and Disaster Management Department Letter No.45316/R & DM dated 28.12.2023 superseding the previous Letter No. letter No. 32814/R&DM dated 24.10.2016 and Letter No. 29204/R&DM dated 04.09.2017 forwarding the same to Addl. Chief Secretary to Government to I.G.R. Odisha, Cuttack and all Revenue Divisional Commissioners and Collectors about the entry of Sale Certificate in Book No.1 of local registration office as follows:
"the Law Department has been consulted in the matter. The Law Department has advised that the Registering authority is to make necessary entries in Book-1 on production of Sale Certificate issued by the authorurised officer without registration and payment of stamp duty and registration fees thereof."
8. Here in this matter at hand, when the copy of the Sale Certificate dated 09.04.2024 was forwarded by the Opp. Party No.6 to the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala after completion of e- auction sale in favour of the Opp. Party No.7 only for filing of the same in Book No.1 of the office of Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 but not for registration of the same, because the copy of the Sale Certificate is not compulsorily WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 9 of 11 registrable and when it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar, Dharmasala (Opp. Party No.2) for filing of the same in Book No.1 for no other reason but as per law for the preservation of a record relating to the said auction in respect of the properties indicated therein in its registration office, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions and Government Notification, the filing of the Sale Certificate by the Opp. Party No.2 in Book No.1 of its registration office after receiving the same cannot be held as erroneous.
Likewise, the mutation of the properties covered under e- auction Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser i.e. Opp. Party No.7 also cannot be held as erroneous.
9. For which, the filing of auction Sale Certificate (the entry of auction sale certificate) by Opp. Party No.2 in the Book No.1 of its registration office and mutation of the properties covered under the said Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser i.e. Opp. Party No.7 till the said auction sale is set aside or cancelled by the competent authority as per law, can WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 10 of 11 neither be illegal nor arbitrary. For which, the question of quashing the said Annexures 14 & 17 do not arise.
10. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The same must fail.
11. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest.
12. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.
(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 24 .09. 2025// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India. Date: 26-Sep-2025 18:23:24 WP(C) No.16105 of 2025 Page 11 of 11