Orissa High Court
Rajashree Gajendra vs District Sub-Registrar on 31 January, 2024
Author: Krushna Ram Mohapatra
Bench: Krushna Ram Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.32589 OF 2023
(In the matter of an application under
Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
*******
Rajashree Gajendra ... Petitioner
-versus-
District Sub-Registrar, Khordha ... Opposite Parties
and another
Advocate for the Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRUSHNA RAM MOHAPATRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 31.01.2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the Endorsement dated 13th April, 2023 (Annexure-7) made by the District Sub- Registrar, Khordha at Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 refusing to a register the deed of cancellation of a registered Joint Venture Agreement dated 11th January, 2013 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'JVA'). The Petitioner also assails the appellate order dated 11th September, 2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Khordha-Opposite Party No.2 in W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 2 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 Appeal Case No.03 of 2023, confirming the endorsement of refusal under Annexure-7.
3. Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that JVA (Annexure-1) was executed between the Petitioner and one Unique Mercantile India Pvt. Limited (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'UMIL') to construct a Five Star Hotel on the land leased out in favour of the Petitioner by Government of Odisha and to run the same in terms and conditions set out therein. After completion of super structure of the building, a dispute arose between the parties. As per the terms of the said JVA, three months' notice was issued to 'UMIL'. As the JVA was a deed registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Petitioner presented a deed of cancellation of such JVA. The District Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar refused the registration of the document with the following endorsement:
"As per the direction of Letter No.3700/IGR dated 23rd may, 2011, cancellation of Agreement Deed will not be registered in the event of one side cancellation. Both the parties have to sign and appear before me for cancellation of Agreement deed."
4. Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred Appeal Case No.03 of 2023 under Section 72 of the Act which was also dismissed vide order dated 11th September, 2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-District Registrar, Khordha-Opposite Party No.2. Hence, this writ petition has been filed assailing both, viz; the endorsement (Annexure-7) and the order (Annexure-8).
5. Mr. Baug, learned counsel made lengthy argument on the requirement of registration of JVA (Annexure-1). According to him, W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 3 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 it was not required to be registered under Section 17 of the Act. Only because Annexure-1 is a registered deed, the Petitioner presented a deed of cancellation before the Sub-Registrar, Khordha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 for registration to invalidate the registered JVA. It is his submission that Letter No.3700/IGR dated 23rd May, 2011 basing upon which endorsement under Annexure-7 was made does not deal with the cancellation of a JVA. It only prohibits unilateral cancellation of a registered sale deed. The deed in question is not a registered sale deed. Hence, there was no legal impediment for registering the deed of cancellation. The appellate Authority has also committed similar error of law in dismissing the appeal. He submits that there is no provision under the Act and Rules framed thereunder to restrict registration of a deed of cancellation of JVA unilaterally. Section 22-A(1)(b) (Odisha Amendment) of the Act reads as under:
"22.A. Refusal to register certain documents-
(1) The registering officer shall refuse to register-
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The instrument relating to cancellation of sale deeds without the consent of the person claiming under the said deed, and.....
xxx xxx xxx"
He also refers to Rule 148 of the Odisha Registration Rules, 1988 (for brevity referred to as 'the Rules') which reads as under:
"148. Refusal of registration of duly presented document. - A document duly presented for registration shall not be admitted to registration under the following circumstances ;
(i) If the executant fails to appear and admit execution within the prescribed time (Section 34).
(ii) If the executant denies execution (Section 35).W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
// 4 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34
(iii) If the person by whom the document purports to be executed be dead, and his representative or assign denies execution (Section 35).
(iv) If the person purporting to have executed the document appears to be a minor, an idiot, or a lunatic (Section 35).
(v) If the Registering Officer is not satisfied of the identity of the person appearing before him and alleging that he executed the document (Section 35). (The party may be given all possible facilities for producing evidence of identification within the time allowed under Section 34).
(vi) If the Registering officer is not satisfied as to the truth of the allegation that the person who executed the document is dead (Section 35).
(vii) If the admitting agent's power-of-attorney has not been made in accordance with the Act, or if an alleged representative or assign has failed to prove his status (Section 35).
(viii) If the Registering Officer is not satisfied as to the fact of execution in the case of a will or an authority to adopt presented after the death of the testator or donor (Section
41).
(ix) If the prescribed fee or fine has not been paid (Sections 25, 34, and 80).
(x) If the parties fail or refuse to mention the-additions of executants of claimants.
(xi) If the parties fail or refuse to fulfill the requirements as prescribed in any other Act, rules framed thereunder and instructions-issued regarding the registration of a deed. [(xii) if the document pertaining to sale, exchange, gift, partition or settlement is not accompanied by Record-of- Rights or the certified copy of the record-of-rights containing the land to be transferred.]"
6. He, therefore, submits that nothing in the Act or Rules empowers the District Sub-Registrar to refuse registration of the document so presented.
7. He further submits that the District Sub-Registrar, made an attempt to justify his action by filing counter affidavit. At Para-6 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the recital, JVA was for construction of a hotel. As such, JVA created interest in favour of both the parties concerned in the schedule of property. Therefore, it is not permissible in law to cancel the deed of registration of JVA at W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 5 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 the behest of the Petitioner unilaterally. It is, therefore, stated therein that the refusal to register the deed of cancellation in absence of the UMIL is justified. Such a contention has no legal basis as the order passed by the Sub-Registrar cannot be supplemented by the reasons which is not spelt out in the endorsement itself. In support of his submission, he relied upon the case of Popcorn Entertainment and another vrs. City Industrial Development Corporation and another, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 593, in which it is held as under:
"28. Much argument was also advanced in regard to the allegations which have been made out in the counter- affidavit before the High Court and in this Court. It is submitted that they were not made party in the show-cause notice and were also not a part of the final order of cancellation which is impugned by the appellant in these proceedings. Mr Vikas Singh further invited our attention to a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., wherein this Court held in para 8 that where an order is passed on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. It is also argued that the said Constitution Bench judgment of this Court has been followed in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees' Assn. v. State of Karnataka, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and in Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan 4. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that CIDCO is trying to go beyond the terms of the show- cause notice/final order of cancellation when admittedly CIDCO has affirmed other similar allotment and permitted them to continue construction in spite of the allotment being made to the other parties without inviting tenders."
7.1 He also relied upon the case of JVPD Scheme Welfare Trust vrs. Chief Officer Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and others, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 361, in which at Para 7, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed// 6 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 "7. It is true that when the order of cancellation dated 24-8-
2004 was passed, the same was solely on the ground that the appellant Trust did not submit the relevant documents to prove its eligibility and on no other ground. The High Court considered the grounds stated in the counter-affidavit and did not interfere with the order of cancellation dated 24-8- 2004. The appellant would be justified in making the grievance that the High Court was not justified in considering the grounds stated in the counter-affidavit which were not the basis for passing the original order of cancellation. However, at the same time, subsequent development and grant of the lease in favour of Respondent 4 initially for a period of 15 years and thereafter for a further period of 15 years and the lease in favour of Respondent 4 is not challenged, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is required to be noted that there is a lease in favour of Respondent 4 since 2004-2005. That Respondent 4 had deposited/paid Rs 1,38,61,046. It is also required to be noted that the consent terms recorded by the High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 9164 of 2005, 1978 of 2007 and 1489 of 2005, on the basis of which the High Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions in terms of the consent terms and on the basis of which the lease of plot in issue in favour of Respondent 4, the lease in favour of Respondent 4 has not been challenged. The lease granted to Respondent 4 was pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. It is true that the appellant Trust was not a party to the said writ petitions. However, still, either the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions and even the lease granted in favour of Respondent 4 was/is required to be challenged before the competent court of law."
8. Both the case laws found origin from the ratio decided in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, which is the parent decision in the field.
9. In view of the above, he submits that the grounds supplemented by the District Sub-Registrar-Opposite Party No.1 in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration to justify refusal of registration under Annexure-7. The Letter dated 23rd May, W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 7 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 2011 relates to registration of deed of cancellation of a registered sale deed only. It does not speak of registration of a cancellation deed of a JVA. The authority under a statute has to act in terms of the power conferred on it by the statute and not otherwise. Thus, the District Sub-Registrar-Opposite Party No.1 has committed an error of jurisdiction in refusing to register the deed of cancellation taking assistance of the Letter No.3700/IGR dated 23rd May, 2011. He further submits that the letter of Board of Revenue No.54720 dated 18th December, 2012 is also not applicable to the case at hand, as it deals with cancellation deed of registered sale deed. A registered sale deed is distinct from a JVA. Thus, both the Letters dated 23rd May, 2011 and 18th December, 2012 are not applicable to the case in hand. The appellate Authority in his order under Annexure-8 only reiterated the reasons assigned by the Opposite Party No.1 in his endorsement of refusal and advised the Petitioner to redress her grievance before competent civil Court. As such, the impugned endorsement under Annexure-7 as well as order under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside.
10. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel made a strenuous argument refuting the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is his submission that recital of the JVA itself discloses that it is an agreement for sale. Thus, it was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Act and indeed the JVA under Annexure-1 has been rightly registered. When a deed is registered, it can only be cancelled following due procedure of law. As by virtue of JVA, the UMIL had accrued interest in the property and it has invested a huge amount pursuant to the said JVA as would be clear W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 8 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 from its letter under Annexure-6, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally, as alleged. On recital of the document under Annexure-1 itself goes to show that it is a deed of conveyance. Hence, the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally in absence of the beneficiary. In support of his submission, he relied upon the case of P. Venkata Ravi Kishore and another vrs. JMR Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3387, wherein Hon'ble Telangana High Court observed as under:
"40. Following the opinion expressed by the Division Bench on a reference the decision of the registering authority was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. Paragraphs 5 and 7 read as under:
"5. Briefly noted, in Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh ((2012) 6 ALD 178), learned single Judge of this Court held that provision in Rule 26 (i)(k)(i) of the Rules is applicable to unilateral cancellation of development agreement-cum-general power of attorney. Another learned Single Judge of this Court disagreed with the view taken in Vasudeva Realtors (supra). According to the learned single Judge, as Rule does not contemplate the prohibition against presentation of deed of cancellation of development agreement-cum-general power of attorney, the view taken in Vasudeva Realtors is not correct and referred the decision to the Division Bench to settle the question. On extensive consideration of the issue, Division Bench answered the reference upholding the view taken by the learned single Judge in Vasudeva Realtors. In terms thereof, unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney is not permissible. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as under:
29. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and provisions of the Act, in our opinion, whenever registered documents such as Development Agreement-cum - GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and registration of such a document/deed must be at the instance of both the parties i.e., bilaterally and not unilaterally. If a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registered without the knowledge and consent of other party to the deed/document, sought to be cancelled, such registration would cause violation to the principles of natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigation, emanating there from. In any case, as stated earlier, in the absence of any provision W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 9 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration without the signatures of both the parties to the document, the deed cannot be entertained. Moreover, if the Registrars are allowed to entertain a deed of cancellation for registration without signatures of both the parties to the document sought to be cancelled, such power would tantamount to conferring the power to decide disputed questions between the parties. No party to the document would ever approach for cancellation of registered document unilaterally unless there is a dispute with the other party in respect of the subject matter of the document. 30. In the result, we answer the question in the negative. In other words, we hold that registration and unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development Agreement-cum-General of Power of Attorney under the Registration Act is not permissible in law."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Although on the face of it, Letter dated 23rd May, 2011 or 18th December, 2012 appears to be not applicable to the case in hand, but it being a deed of conveyance, the principles laid down in the said letters are squarely applicable to the same, more particularly, in view of the ratio decided in P. Venkata Ravi Kishore (supra). The requirement of a statute cannot be taken away by interpreting the same in a manner which is opposed to its object. While interpreting a provision of law, the scope and object of such provision has to be looked into.
12. In the instant case, if Section 22-A(1)(b) (Odisha Amendment) of the Act is read closely, it will cover a deed of conveyance. Only because the provision deals with registered sale deed alone, it cannot be confined to the sale deeds only. It includes a deed of conveyance also. Hence, neither the District Sub-Registrar, nor the District Registrar has committed any error in refusing to register the deed of cancellation presented by the Petitioner vide Annexure-7 and 8 respectively. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed// 10 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Perused the materials.
15. No doubt, Section 22-A (1) (b) (Odisha Amendment) of the Act refers to cancellation of registered sale deed only. On reading of the letters and words of the provision appear to be not applicable to the instant case. Further, the Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar has relied upon letter dated 23rd May, 2011 which deals with registration of deed of cancellation of registered sale deeds only, which according to Mr. Baug, learned counsel for the Petitioner, cannot be made applicable to a registered document of the present nature (JVA). The appellate Authority although dealt with the same, but opined that the matter involves disputed questions of fact and the dispute is civil in nature. Thus, he granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for adequate relief. Thus, the submission of Mr. Baug, learned counsel appears to be logical on the face of it. However, it will be dealt with in following paragraphs in detail. But, the fact remains, when the District Registrar-cum-ADM, Khorda- Opposite Party No.2 itself was of the opinion that it cannot decide a dispute of such nature, he should have set aside the order passed by the District Sub-Registrar-Opposite Party No.1.
16. On perusal of Annexure-1, it appears that the JVA is a deed of conveyance. Clauses 2.1, 8.2, 9.7 and 16.5 clearly indicate that the Petitioner has conveyed certain rights more fully described in the aforesaid clauses of JVA to UMIL. Thus, registration of the same is compulsory under Section 17 of the Act. In fact, the document has been registered. When a document is registered, it has to be cancelled in the manner prescribed. Section 22-A(1)(b) (Odisha Amendment) of W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 11 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 the Act although refers to cancellation of a registered sale deed only stating that it cannot be unilaterally, but a purposive interpretation of the provision of a statute has to be made to achieve the object of its introduction in the statute. The provision under Section 22-A(1)(b) (Odisha Amendment) of the Act should not be read and interpreted with rigidity of its expression. There should not be a restrictive interpretation to the provision. The provision is inclusive in nature and covers any other deed of such nature. A sale deed is essentially a deed of conveyance. Thus, the provision under Section 22-A(1)(b) (Odisha Amendment) of the Act also brings within its ambit any kind of registered deed of conveyance. The position has been clarified by Telangana High Court in the case of P. Venkata Ravi Kishore (supra), in which it is held that since by virtue of a deed of conveyance a party in whose favour it is made accrues certain benefit and right, it cannot be cancelled unilaterally without affording opportunity of being heard. Otherwise, it may lead to multiplicity of litigation and further complication.
17.1 In the case of Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, it is held as under: -
"34. The role of the Sub-Registrar (Registration) stands discharged, once the document is registered (see Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan [State of U.P. v. Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan, AIR 1961 SC 787]). Section 17 of the 1908 Act deals with documents which require compulsory registration. Extinguishment deed is one such document referred to in Section 17(1)(b). Section 18 of the same Act deals with documents, registration whereof is optional. Section 20 of the Act deals with documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations. Section 21 provides for description of property and maps or plans and Section 22 deals with the description of houses and land by reference to government maps and surveys. There is no express provision in the 1908 Act which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration. The fact whether the W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 12 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 document was properly presented for registration cannot be reopened by the Registrar after its registration. The power to cancel the registration is a substantive matter. In absence of any express provision in that behalf, it is not open to assume that the Sub-Registrar (Registration) would be competent to cancel the registration of the documents in question. Similarly, the power of the Inspector General is limited to do superintendence of Registration Offices and make rules in that behalf. Even the Inspector General has no power to cancel the registration of any document which has already been registered .".
(emphasis supplied) 17.2 In the case at hand, there is a substantive provision under Section 22(1)(b) (Odisha amendment) of the Act conferring power to the Registering Officer to register a deed of cancellation of a previously registered sale deed. As discussed above, it also includes registration of a deed of previously registered deed of conveyance.
18. The next question that arises for consideration is regarding correctness of the endorsement and order under Annexures-7 and 8 respectively. The Registering Officer does not discharge any quasi- judicial power while registering a document. It is purely an administrative job. Being a statutory authority, the Registering Officer has to act in accordance with the power conferred under the statute and not otherwise. But, his power cannot be arrested to interpret the provision of the statute. It has the onerous responsibility and obligation to discharge the statutory power in the manner provided. In order to discharge its obligation, the Authority has to give a purposive interpretation to the provision under which it is acting. In the instant case, the District Sub-Registrar-Opposite Party No.1 relied upon Letter dated 23rd May, 2011 (Annexure-9) issued by the Inspector General of Registration to endorse refusal of registration of a deed to cancel the JVA. Such a letter does not have W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 13 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 any statutory effect by giving it a purposive interpretation. The instruction provided in the said letter has to be read in its letter and spirit. The said letter contains instruction regarding registration of deed of cancellation of a registered sale deed intimating that it cannot be done unilaterally.
19. In view of the discussions made above, although the Sub- Registrar-Opposite Party No.1 has rightly held that consideration of registration of the deed of cancellation of a registered deed of JVA in the instant case requires presence of both the parties to the said agreement, but letter which formed the basis of such opinion has no application to this case.
20. Similarly, Letter dated 18th December, 2012 (Annexure- 10) is not applicable to the case of the present nature, as it does not have any statutory effect. Further, in view of the ratio in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the statutory Authority cannot justify its order by supplementing reasons by an affidavit (in the present case the Counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.1), which is not spelt out in the order itself. Thus, the grounds of refusal set out in the Counter Affidavit of Opposite Party No. 1 for endorsing refusal (Annexure-7) cannot be taken into consideration to justify the said order.
21. Since the impugned endorsement under Annexure-7 has been made relying upon the letter No.3700/IGR dated 23rd May, 2011 (Annexure-9), the same is not sustainable.
22. Further, the endorsement of refusal has been confirmed by the appellate Court under Annexure-8 reiterating the grounds in the order under Annexure-7. As such, the same is also not sustainable in the eye W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 14 // Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 16-Feb-2024 20:12:34 of law. Hence, both the endorsement and order under Annexure-7 and 8 respectively are set aside and the District Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 is directed to consider the registration of deed of cancellation of registered deed of JVA afresh keeping in mind the observation and discussions made here-in-above.
23. If the deed is presented within a period of four weeks hence, the same shall be considered in the light of the discussion made above.
24. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
Issue urgent certified copy of this judgment on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated 31st Day of January, 2024/ Rojalin W.P.(C). NO.32589 OF 2023 Page 14 of 14