IMPORTANT POINT
The specific bar under Section 75(2) of the Registration Act and the implications of time limitations and fines under Sections 25 and 34 were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-

1. A deed of conveyance was entered into between the petitioners and the private respondents on September 16, 2020. A query was raised in respect of the stamp duty payable on June 22, 2020 and the stamp and registration fees were paid on July 21, 2020. The payment was approved on July 27, 2020.

2. The deed was presented on December 16, 2020 for registration before the District Sub-Registrar-IV at Alipur. However, one of the vendors was absent, for which the registration could not take place. The Sub-Registrar accordingly refused to complete the registration. A representation given by the petitioners was forwarded to the District Registrar.

3. Being aggrieved with the non-completion of registration, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the 1908 Act”) to the District Registrar on January 31, 2022. The District Registrar, vide order dated February 3, 2022, directed the Sub-Registrar to admit the deed of registration under Section 75(1) of the Act, with requisite fine under Rule 39 of the West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962.

4. A second query was raised accordingly on February 22, 2022, in which the market value was shown to have increased.

5. The petitioners applied to the District Registrar on March 8, 2022 for exemption of fine under Rule 39 in terms of a Notification dated February 1, 2021 issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp and Revenue, West Bengal. The Assistant Commissioner of Stamp and Revenue directed the District Registrar to look into the matter on March 16, 2022.

6. The District Registrar, by the impugned decision dated April 11, 2022, held that there could not be any registration of the document since 30 days had elapsed after the order under Section 75(1) was passed on February 3, 2022.

7. The petitioners now seek a direction on the authorities to register the deed.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that the registration fees were already received long back and as such there could not be any refusal of the registration. It is contended that the fines to be imposed under Sections 25 and 34 of the 1908 Act were waived by the Notification dated February 1, 2021 bearing no. IGR-163/2021.

9. It is further contended that due to the pandemic period, the time for presenting the document was extended to 12 months. Hence, the time-period for presentation of the pending deed for completion of registration with fine, which was earlier four months, is now twelve months.

10. The District Registrar accepted the contents of the Notification dated February 1, 2021 by extending and/or enlarging the period mentioned in Sections 25 and 34 of the 1908 Act but the Registering Authority acted contrary to such notification in imposing fine and generating new query.

11. It is thus argued that the registration ought to be completed as per the previously existing market value.

12. Although the State was initially represented by counsel and were directed to file written notes of arguments, on the scheduled hearing date, that is, on April 16, 2024 none appeared for the State. Thus, the matter there taken up for hearing ex parte.

13. The bone of contention is whether the petitioners are now entitled to registration of the documents in view of the specific bar under Section 75(2) of the Registration Act.

14. Surprisingly, the petitioners have not specifically challenged the refusal by the District Registrar to register the deed by his decision dated April 11, 2022. In the teeth of such decision, the question of exemption of fine under Rule 39 and/or enlargement of time under Sections 25 and 34 become immaterial.

15. Even in their written arguments, the petitioners do not advance any argument on Section 75(2) or challenge such refusal but bypasses the entire issue and attempt to turn the focus on an entirely different aspect, as if the delay was in the first presentation of the deed which has not been condoned.

16. H