Cuttack: Quashing an order of the Sambalpur subregistrar refusing to register a land sale deed executed by Utkal Khadi Mandal (Khurda) after calling it “to deposit the stamp duty”, Orissa high court recently directed the registering officer to register the document within a week of the production of a certified copy of the judgment.Considering the petition filed by Utkal Khadi Mandal, Justice Sashikanta Mishra, in his Aug 25 judgment, said: “It is not understood as to exercising which power the Registering Officer cited the deficiencies enumerated in the impugned order.”Justice Mishra said that if there was doubt about the identity or authority of the presenter, the official could have sought satisfactory proof under sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act and Rule 25(ix).“Instead, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the stamp duty and then the document was refused to be registered. This is akin to putting the cart before the horse,” the Judge observed.Accordingly, Justice Mishra set aside the April 7, 2026, refusal and directed the registering officer to register the sale deed already presented by the khadi mandal through its secretary, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.Utkal Khadi Mandal (Khurda), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on Dec 6, 1947, was established for the purpose of encouraging khadi industries in the villages of Odisha to provide self-employment. It had challenged the refusal to register its deed relating to the sale of 0.28 acre of land at Dhanakauda in Sambalpur district. The mandal had purchased the property through its secretary on Feb 19, 1972.It executed a sale deed in favour of a person on Jan 7, 2024, which was presented before the subregistrar on April 2, 2026. Though stamp duty had been assessed and deposited, the authority refused registration on April 7, citing five deficiencies.The HC questioned the state’s claim that the society needed recognition from the Khadi and Village Industries Commission merely because “khadi” figured in its name.“Which law requires such recognition has conveniently not been spelt out,” the HC said, holding the state’s stand “untenable”.The HC also rejected the state’s contention that the mandal had to establish its functioning, the validity of its members and quorum of the meeting authorising the transaction. It termed such a proposition “preposterous” and said it lacked legal sanction.
