Back
2006 Supreme(Bom) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
NEERAJ KUMAR UMESHKUMAR MOR
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Decided on, APRIL 4, 2006
Headnote:Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 23 and 25 - Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, Rule 27 - Penalty - Imposition of - Delay in presentation of stamped documents for registration - Delay of more than one month - Penalty cannot be levied exceeding 5 times on it - Registrar imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- - Later on further demanded Rs. 50,000/- - Word not exceeding 5 times amount - Means it is not mandatory that 5 times amounts must be levied - 5 times upper limit - Petitioners directed to pay additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- only. - It is clear that where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, it is open to the Registrar to accept a document for registration on the payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the property registration fee. The words "not exceeding" are important because it is not the mandate of the law that in every case a fine of ten times the registration fee should be imposed. Ten times is the upper limits and within that limit a judicial discretion has been vested in the Registrar to determine what if any fine should be levied. Similarly, each of the clauses of Rule 27 empower the imposition of a fine not exceeding a particular ceiling. Under clause (2) thereto which is applicable in the present case where the delay exceeds one month but does not exceed two months, the fine is not to exceed five times the proper registration fee. In a case such as the present, where the petitioner had submitted that it was due to an illness he was unable to remain present for admitting the execution of the document before the registering officer, it was not incumbent as a matter of course to impose a fine of five times the registration fee. In fact initially as noted above, a fine of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed which was duly paid. In these circumstances, Courts find that the impugned order of the third respondent is ex facie unsustainable. Court would have been inclined to remand the matter back to the third respondent, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that the ends of justice would require that a finality should attach to the proceedings. There is no dispute about the fact that the property registration fee was duly paid and even the fine of Rs. 30,000/- was paid as initially assessed. Court, therefore, disposes of this petition by quashing and setting aside the notices of the third respondent dated 30th December, 2000 and 11th May, 2001. Instead and in substitution thereof, Court directs that the petitioner shall deposit an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- with the third respondent over and above the fine that has already been deposited.
Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 25, 26 and 27 - Registration of document - Delay in presentation of document for - Imposition of fines - Words "not exceeding ten times the amount of proper registration" - Not mandate of law that in every case fine of ten times the registration fee to be imposed - Ten times is upper limit - Judicial discretion vested in Registrar within that limit to determine what if any fine should be imposed.
Registration Rules - Rule 27 - Registration Act (16 of 1908), Sections 23 and 25 - Registration of document - Petitioner due to an illness was unable to remain present for admitting the execution of the document before the registering officer - It was not incumbent as a matter of course to impose a fine of five times the registration fee - A fine of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed which was duly paid - Order passed by authority seeking additional payment of Rs. 50,000/- within fifty days is ex facie unsustainable.
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
( 1 ) RULE, by consent returnable forthwith. Learned counsel are agreed to a hearing and final disposal at this stage.
( 2 ) BY a sale deed dated 25th August, 1998, the petitioner purchased certain landed property from the Fourth respondent at Mauje Khambewadi, Taluka karjat in the District of Alibag at and for a consideration of Rs. 9. 55 lacs. The sale deed was stated to have been duly stamped and to have been executed by the petitioner and the Fourth respondent on 25th August, 1998. The Fourth respondent lodged the sale deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Taluka Karjat on 25th August, 1998. The registration charges of Rs. 25,116/- were paid and a receipt was handed over to the Fourth respondent. The document was lodged in the office of the Third respondent under Sr. No. 1783/98, upon the General manager of the Fourth respondent admitting execution of the document. It has been stated that the petitioner was prevented on account of his ill health from appearing before the Third respondent and he eventually appeared before the third respondent on 3rd February, 1999. A fine of Rs. 30,000/- was levied upon the petitioner taking into consideration the duration of delay and a receipt evidencing the payment of fine came to be issued to the petitioner. The Third respondent accordingly ordered the document to be registered and the document came to be duly registered on 19th February, 1999 against the payment of the aforesaid fine of Rs. 30,000/ -. Thereafter a notice dated 30th December, 2000 was issued by the Third respondent to the petitioner stating that it was necessary to charge a fine of five times the registration charges viz. Rs. 80,000/- and since only a part payment of Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from the petitioner, additional payment of Rs. 50,000/- was sought within 50 days. The petitioner submitted a reply thereto on 27th March, 2001. Thereafter a notice dated 11th March, 2001 was issued to the petitioner informing him that the deficit of Rs. 50,000/- would be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. That led to the institution of these proceedings.
( 3 ) SECTION 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides as follows :"23. Time for presenting documents - Subject to the provisions contained in sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a Will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within four months from the date of its execution : provided that a copy of a decree or order may be presented within four months from the day on which the decree or order was made, or, where it is appealable, within four months from the day on which it becomes final. "
( 4 ) SECTION 25 contains a provision for the acceptance of a document for registration if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, a document which is executed is not presented for registration, till the expiry of the time prescribed in that behalf. Section 25 provides as follows :"25. Provision where delay in presentation is unavoidable - (1) If, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, any document executed, or copy of a decree or order made in (India) is not presented for registration till after the expiration of the time hereinbefore prescribed in that behalf, the Registrar, in cases where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months, may direct that, on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper registration-fee, such document shall be accepted for registration. (2) Any application for such direction may be lodged with a Sub- registrar, who shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. "
( 5 ) IN exercise of the rule making power, Rule 27 of the Rules that have been framed provides a Scale of fines to be imposed under sections 25 or 34 as the case may be. Rule 27 provides as follows :"27. Scale of fines under sections 25 or 34 - The scale of fines to be imposed under section 25 or 34 shall be as follows,
