Orissa High Court
WP(C)/24092/2026 of ARUN KUMAR ROUTARAY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 9 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24092 of 2026 [ODHC010531252026] Arun Kumar Routaray …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. Pattanaik, Advocate -Versus – State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Represented by Mrs. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 24092 of 2026
[ODHC010531252026]
Arun Kumar Routaray
….
Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. Pattanaik, Advocate
-Versus –
State of Odisha and Others
….
Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mrs. J. Sahoo,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
09.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:- “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: A. Admit the present Writ Petition; B. Issue a writ In the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Opposite Party No.4-Sub-Registrar, Dhenkanal to receive, admit and register the Sale Deed presented by the Petitioner in his capacity as Director and authorised representative of SVS Kalinga Marketing and Developers Private Limited in respect of the lands comprised in Khata Nos.784/1504, 784/1508, 784/1535, 784/1535, 784/1715 and 784/1809, situated at Mouza-Bhapur, Tahasil-Dhenkanal Sadar, District-Dhenkanal, provided the document otherwise Order No.
1. satisfies the requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act; C. Declare that the refusal of Opposite Party No.4 to receive and register the Sale Deed without assigning any reason or without any authority of law is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19{l)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India; D). Direct the Opposite Parties not to create any obstruction in the registration of the Sale Deed in the absence of any statutory prohibition or judicial order restraining transfer of the subject properties; E. Direct Opposite Party No.4 to complete the registration process within a lime to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court after verification of the document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act,1908; AND Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; AND For this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duly bound ever pray.”
4. It is submitted that the petitioner attempted to present the sale deed for registration, but the same was not accepted.
5. Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of grating liberty to the petitioner to apply for registration of the document in the prescribed mode by submitting an application online within seven days from today. If such application is submitted, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
(Sashikanta Mishra) BC Tudu
Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2026 18:33:38 Signature Not Verified