CUTTACK, India, April 18 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 17:
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioners for non-implementation of the directions given in the judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025.
In the judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025, the alleged contemnor was directed to receive the deed for sale of the Petitioners and to act upon the same as per The Indian Registration Act, 1908 and The Orissa Registration Rules, 1988.
2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Perused the show-cause affidavit submitted by the alleged contemnor i.e. Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh.
4. In the show-cause affidavit, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh (alleged contemnor) has assigned reasons for non- implementation of the above directions given in the judgment dated 16.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025 for nonregistration of the deed for sale of the Petitioners that,
in the meantime, an another Sub-Registrar office i.e. Sub-Registrar, Saintala has been opened and the area, in respect of which, the land sought to be registered i.e. Mouza-Dhanput has been taken out from the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh to the jurisdiction of newly opened Sub-Registrar, Saintala. For which, it is not possible on his part to register the deed in respect of the properties of Mouza-Dhanput, as the jurisdiction of that area has been taken out from his jurisdiction.
5. The aforesaid show-cause affidavit submitted by the alleged contemnor for his exoneration from registering the deed for sale of the Petitioners in spite of the directions of this Court in the judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025 is not acceptable under law.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in a Full Bench decision of this Court:-
In the matter of District Judge, Puri reported in 36 (1970) CLT 1026 (F.B.) that, When, after the institution of a suit, the area containing the disputed property transferred out of its local jurisdiction- Held, the Original Court retains the jurisdiction.
6. When, it has been clarified by this Court in the above Full Bench decision that, even after taking the area out of the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh in respect of the properties sought to be registered, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh, who was having his original jurisdiction, he retains its power to deal with the registration and as on the date of passing of the judgment by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025, the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh had the jurisdiction to register the deed in respect of which, direction was given by this Court, then at this juncture, there is no impediment under law for the Sub-Registrar, Titilagarh to implement the directions made by this Court in the judgment of W.P.(C) No.24710 of 2025.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xxskow0H8oXQmdnY1Qdz5ikoACm74tdUQQBYTcziswiZ&caseno=CONTC/6171/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010900492025&state_code=11&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
