SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Bom) 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Siddharth Goel – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Registrar Class-II, Pune – Respondent 
Writ Petition Nos. 4179, 4180 of 2022
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rachana Harpale, Nitin P. Deshpande
For the Respondents: S.P. Kamble, M.M. Pabale

Registering authority cannot refuse sale deed registration citing fragmentation, red zone, or lack of permissions under other laws; powers limited under Sections 34-35 to execution and identity verification; Rule 44(1)(i) read down as inconsistent.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 23, 25, 34, 35, 72 - Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 - Rule 44(1)(i) - Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 - Indian Works of Defence Act, 1903 - Refusal to register sale deeds of residential plots citing fragmentation, red zone location, lack of non-agricultural permission, private layout - Held, no delay in presentation within four months hence no penalty leviable; Rule 44(1)(i) inconsistent with Sections 34, 35 requiring read down; registering officer's enquiry limited to execution, identity of executants, cannot refuse on prohibitions under other statutes operating in distinct fields. (Paras 11, 13)

(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 34(3), 35 - Scope of registering officer's powers - Self-contained code; cannot extend to adjudicate compliance with land revenue or defence laws; executive circulars or rules exceeding statutory limits invalid. (Paras 13)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions challenging orders under Section 72 confirming sub-registrar's refusal to register sale deeds executed for residential plots in residential zone within municipal limits, on grounds of alleged land fragmentation, red zone under defence restrictions, absence of non-agricultural permission and sanctioned layout.

Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed and set aside; no legal basis for refusal; rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a).

Issues: Whether registration can be refused for non-compliance with fragmentation act, defence restrictions, or lack of permissions; applicability of Rule 44(1)(i); levy of penalty for alleged delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration Act provisions limit enquiry to procedural aspects like execution and identity; other laws like fragmentation act not to be imported; Rule 44(1)(i) read down to align with parent Act; municipal limits do not exempt but registering authority lacks adjudication power. Result : Writ petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. refusal of registration for fragmentation, red zone, no na permission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. municipal limits exempt fragmentation; red zone bars construction only. (Para 4 , 6)
3. rule 44 requires noc for prohibited land transactions. (Para 7 , 8)
4. no delay penalty under section 23; timely presentation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. rule 44 read down; registration authority limited to registration act. (Para 12 , 13)
6. impugned orders quashed; rule made absolute. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.

2. Both these Writ Petitions challenge the order passed by the District Registrar and Additional Collector of Stamps, Pune, passed in exercise of powers under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, refusing to register the sale deed vide orders dated 21.12.2021 and 24.03.2021, in Appeal Nos. 188 of 2021 and 63 of 2021, respectively. The subject matter of the Writ Petition is plot Nos. 21 and 22 situated at village Talavade, Taluka Haveli, District–Pune. The Registration Authority has refused to register the sale deed executed in respect of these two residential plots on the ground that the land allegedly constitutes a fragment, thus affected by the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT , 1947.

3. The other objection is that the land is situated in a Red Zone, hence requires permission of the competent authority. The impugned order also raises an objection that, the sale deed is of the plot of land from the private layout, for which the Non-Agricultural permission is not obtained. Since both these Writ Petitions raise identical issues, they are heard and decided together.

4. The learned advocate appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners have executed a sale deed on 30.12.2020, for which they have paid full consideration. The lands in question fall in a residential zone as per the development plan of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, and covered by the Government Notifications dated 18.08.2009 and 02.03.2015. It is contended that there is no bar for execution of sale deed with respect to the subject lands, still the Respondent No.1–Sub Registrar Class II, Haveli No. 10, Pune, by order dated 20.05.2021, has refused registration of the sale deed on the ground that, the sale deed covers an area of land which is affected by the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT , 1947. The registration is also refused on the ground that there is no NA permission of the land, for which the sale deed is executed, and the said land falls in Red Zone, due to which, there are restrictions on the construction to be carried out. Hence, the sale deed, without NOC from the respective Competent Authority, cannot be registered.

5. The order dated 20.05.2021 passed by the Sub–Registrar was further subjected to challenge in an Appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, before the Assistant Registrar and Additional Collector of Stamps, Pune, who has in turn confirmed the order passed by the Sub Registrar vide order dated 21.12.2021. In addition to upholding the grounds stated by the Sub Registrar, the Respondent No.2 Appellate Authority also took a view that Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, requires a document to be registered within four months from the date of execution, if there is a delay in approaching the Competent Authority for registration of the document, penalty is required to be paid.

6. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that none of the grounds assigned for refusing registration of the documents are maintainable in law. The property in question is situated at village Talawade, Taluka Haveli, District–Pune, which falls within the limits of the Pimpri–Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION AND CON

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top