Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 100 (ORI)

Amulya Krushna Rana v. Registrar, Jajpur

2017-01-20

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
ORDER 20.1.2017. Heard Sri A. Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. In spite of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the private opposite party. Assailing the endorsement made on the registered sale deed, vide Annexure-1, by the Registering Officer, Sukinda dated 2.6.2012, Sri Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registering Officer has no jurisdiction to make any such endorsement once the document is already registered by him and under the circumstance, Sri Deo made a request for detachment of that particular endorsement from the sale deed. In support of his contention Sri Deo also relied on a decision in the case of Subeda Nayak vrs. Government of Orissa reported in 105 (2008) CLT 109 and submitted that in view of the decision as aforesaid, the petitioner has a case to the satisfaction of the Court. Sri Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the endorsement has nothing to do and it is simply to be treated as an endorsement bringing the existing fact, and therefore there is no illegality in the endorsement given by the Registering Officer, Sukinda leaving any scope for entertaining the writ petition. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the sale deed under Annexure-1 has been registered by the competent authority way back on 2.6.2012 and as the facts reveal, the vender therein cancelled the registration of the sale deed dated 2.6.2012 by executing a deed of cancellation no.553 dated 7.6.2012 there is no dispute with regard to above by any concerned or by the parties herein. Now looking to the decision of this Court from the angle of the issue involved in the case i.e. the Registering Authority has no right to make such endorsement on the document already registered by it. Scan of the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner paragraph-7 of the decision supra reads as follows :- “7. Therefore if a document for cancellation of the sale deed is executed the same cannot have any force over the sale deed already executed. There are the District Sub-Registrar should not have made an endorsement on the original sale deed or on its copy which is maintained in His office. Therefore if a document for cancellation of the sale deed is executed the same cannot have any force over the sale deed already executed. There are the District Sub-Registrar should not have made an endorsement on the original sale deed or on its copy which is maintained in His office. Therefore we allow this Writ Petition and quash the endorsement made by the District Sub-Registrar on the copy of the sale deed and he is directed to delete the endorsement from the records of the sale deed maintained in his office.” Reading of the aforesaid decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, this Court finds the decision has a direct bearing on the case as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has force. This Court holds that the Registering Authority once registered a document has no authority to make any such endorsement on the sale deed already. This Court further observes that interference in the registered document in the manner taken place here will be amounting taking away the sanctity and authenticity of a valid document which power does not lie with the Registering Officer as he was already functus officio after the document is registered by him. Under the circumstance while entertaining the prayer made in the writ petition this Court finds the endorsement on the registered sale deed dated 6.6.2012 with regard to cancellation deed no.553 dated 7.6.2012 is illegal and as a consequence while allowing the writ petition this Court directs the Sub-Registrar Sukinda O.P.2 to delete the endorsement involving cancellation deed dated 7.6.2012 and set the sale deed right. The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this order on the O.P.2 within fifteen days and the Sub-Registrar shall do well in working out the correction as per the decision of this Court within a period of one week thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy. Petition disposed of.