MAITRI MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with the following prayer :-

(2.) Background involving the case is that a piece of land in Plot No.8846 measuring an area of Ac.0.585 decimals covered under Khata No.322 of Mouza-Ghatikia under Chandaka Police Station in the district of Khurda stood recorded in the name of Smt.Maitri Mohanty, petitioner no.1 and Sri Kedar Nath Nanda, petitioner no.2 as per the finally published settlement R.O.R. dated 14.11.2013. Kedar Nath Nanda, petitioner no.2, in order to manage, sell and deal with his share of property under Annexure-1, gave a General Power of Attorney in favour of Brundaban Nayak on 3.1.2011, who was looking after the land in question for and on behalf of Kedar Nath Nanda, petitioner no.2. In the meantime, Smt. Maitri Mohanty, petitioner no.1, for her legal necessity intended to sell her share of land from the aforesaid plot to one Brundaban Nayak, husband of Smt. Renubala Samantaray, petitioner no.3, and accordingly, entered into an agreement for sale with said Brundaban Nayak on 5.1.2018 and received an advance of Rs.5.00 lakhs by way of Account Payee Cheque dated 5.1.2018. While the matter stood thus, in spite of cut-off relationship between Maitri Mohanty, petitioner no.1 and her husband, Rakesh Kumar Mallick, in collusion with one Manas Ranjan Mohapatra, her husband, Rakesh Kumar Mallick managed to execute and register an agreement to sell the land in the name of petitioner no.1, in favour of Manas Ranjan Mohapatra on 20.1.2018 thereby completely forging the signature of petitioner no.1 and making false impersonation of petitioner no.1 before the Sub-Registrar. Petitioner no.1 claimed that she has neither signed nor appeared before the Sub-Registrar nor even has been paid with the consideration amount involving the sale agreement dated 20.1.2018. In the meantime, petitioner nos.1 and 2 intended to sell the suit land for due consideration to petitioner no.3. Accordingly, petitioner nos.1 and 2 being represented by their Power of Attorney executed a sale deed in respect of the suit land on 21.5.2019 in favour of petitioner no.3 and received the consideration amount thereof. Consequent upon receipt of consideration amount, they have also handed over the possession of the suit land to the purchaser. As required under law, the sale deed was executed by the parties concerned along with true xerox copies of Hal Settlement R.O.R. and the Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the suit land, which were presented for registration on the basis of assessment. The petitioners also averred that necessary Stamp Duty has also been paid by way of franking. Further on assessment and demand, they have also paid the registration fees and, thereafter, the registration being completed, O.Ps.4 and 5 issued Registration Ticket to Brundaban Nayak, the Power of Attorney Holder of petitioner no.2 and the husband of petitioner no.3 for receiving the sale deed later on the very same date, i.e., 21.5.2019. Opposite Party no.5, who is also acting as Opposite Party no.4 on the date of presentation of the sale deed for registration, has also made his endorsement and attestation involving the sale deed. The petitioners in order to establish the aforesaid developments have filed documents, vide Annexure-4 and ultimately filed the receipt vide Annexure-7. Similarly, they also established the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the sale deed vide Annexure-8, even granting receipt clearly indicating therein to release the registered document on 21.5.2019 itself and clearly mentioning therein the expected date of return of document to be 21.5.2019 as appearing at Annexure-5. The instrument was not returned back to the petitioners on being registered constraining the petitioners to file the writ petition in this Court seeking the relief indicated in the pre-amended writ petition.

(3.) For the subsequent development taking place during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners also brought the further fact that in a fraudulent attempt of opposite Party no.6 connived with opposite party nos.4 and 5, the petitioners were issued with a show cause notice, vide Annexure-9 asking them to show cause on the allegation of opposite party no.6 in the matter of constraint involving registration of the instrument.