JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., for the respondents.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner, by the present petition wanted to seek direction for disposal of his application for grant of sanction to prosecute the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar for having allowed registration of the sale-deed, allegedly registered in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Rules). However, during the pendency of the petition, it appears that the said application filed by the petitioner was disposed of as rejected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the same on the ground that the refusal to grant the sanction for prosecution of the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar is bad in law besides being arbitrary inasmuch as that the registration of the sale-deed in question by the Sub-Registrar is totally in contravention of Rule 44(c) and (h) of the said Rules.

4. Few facts relevant for the decision are that: the petitioner runs a printing press situated on a plot bearing City Survey No. 411/1 stated to be belonging to the Government. As the petitioner learnt about the attempt on the part of some persons to dispose of the said land, ignoring title of the Government to the same, the petitioner approached the respondents with a representation in that regard and the respondents issued direction to the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar not to register any such sale-deed in relation to the said land. However, it appears that the Sub-Registrar, Tumsar allowed registration of the sale-deed in respect of the said land. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned Sub-Registrar has, by allowing registration of the said sale-deed, acted in dereliction of his duty and the said Act constitutes an offence punishable under sections 166 and 167 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, therefore, approached the respondents for grant of sanction, which has been illegally refused and hence the present petition.

5. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of records, the question which arises for consideration is that whether Registering Authority under the said Act, can verify the title of the executant of a document relating to the subject-matter of the transaction under such document and, in the absence of such title being disclosed to the Registering Authority, can it refuse the registration of such document?

6. Under Part III of the said Act, section 17 thereof enumerates the documents of which the registration is compulsory and accordingly any sale-deed in respect of any immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees or more is necessarily required to be registered. Section 18 speaks of the documents, of which, the registration is optional. Part IV of the said Act pertains to the provisions of law relating to the time of presentation of documents for registration and for re-registration in case of those documents which so warrant. Part V relates to the place of registration. Part VI pertains to the presentation of documents for registration. Part XI speaks of duties and powers of Registering Officers. Thereunder sub-part (A) pertains to the registers, books and indexes and sub-part (B) pertains to the procedure on admitting to registration. Sub-part (C) relates to special duties of Sub-Registrar. Sub-part (D) relates to special duty of Registrar and sub-part (E) pertains to the controlling powers of Registrars and Inspector General. Section 69 thereunder relates to powers of the Government to frame Rules under the said Act. Part XII pertains to the procedure for refusal to register and Part XIII is in relation to fees for registration, searches and copies.

7. Section 32 of the said Act provides that except in cases mentioned in sections 31, 88 and 89, every document to be registered under the said Act shall be presented at pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document