SIDDHART GOEL vs THE SUB-REGISTRAR CLASS II AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:9479-DB
WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4180 OF 2022

Siddharth Goel
Age – 46 years, Occupation – Service,
R/o. Bungalow No. 32,
Suyojana Society, Koregaon Park,
Pune – 411 001.
]
]
]
]
]
…Petitioner
Versus
1. The Sub–Registrar Class II,
Haveli No. 10,
Pune City, Pune;
]
]
]
]
]
]
}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
2. The District Registrar and
Additional Collector, Pune;
3. Inspector General of Registration
and Collector of Stamps,
Maharashtra State, Pune; and
…Respondents
4. State of Maharashtra
Through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Forests, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4179 OF 2022
Shantanu Santoshkumar Goel
Age – 45 years, Occupation – Service,
R/o. Bungalow No. 32,
Suyojana Society, Koregaon Park,
Pune – 411 001.
]
]
]
]
]
…Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH
AHER
Date:
2026.02.24
20:42:02
+0530
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH
AHER
Page 1 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

Versus
1. The Sub–Registrar Class II,
Haveli No. 10,
Pune City, Pune;
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
2. The District Registrar and
Additional Collector, Pune;
3. Inspector General of Registration
and Collector of Stamps,
Maharashtra State, Pune; and
…Respondents
4. State of Maharashtra
Through the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Forests, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
Ms. Rachana Harpale i/b. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate , for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. in W.P. No. 4180 of
2022.
Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P. No. 4179 of
2022.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED: 05 FEBRUARY 2026.
JUDGMENT (PER MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up
for final disposal with the consent of parties.
Page 2 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

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
Page 3 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

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
Page 4 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, would not be attracted, hence the
registration of the document cannot be refused on that ground.
Similarly, the other ground that the property falls under the
Red Zone, is also not tenable for the reason that, though the provisions
of Indian Works of Defence Act (7 of 1903), apply to the land in
question in both Writ Petitions, merely seeking registration of sale
deed is not prohibited, the restriction would apply only in case when
permission is sought for construction or development in the Red Zone.
In the present case, the Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions do
not seek construction or development permission, but merely seek
registration of the sale deed. Thus, the bar would not be applicable to
the present fact situation. Hence, on both the counts, the impugned
order suffers from non application of mind, requiring interference by
this Court.
7. The learned AGP Mr. M. M. Pabale and Mr. Kamble, relying on
the affidavit–in–reply on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 would
submit that, the Petitioner seeks registration of fragmented land,
without any sanctioned layout or Non–Agricultural permission from
the competent authorities. Relying on Rule 44 (1)(i) of the
Registration Act, 1908, it is contended that, said provision mandates
the Registering Authority to ascertain fulfillment of certain conditions
before accepting the document for registration. It mandates the
registering officer to ascertain, whether the transaction intended by
the document is prohibited by any existing Act of Central or State
Government, requiring a true copy of no objection certificate from the
Competent Authority to accompany the document.
Page 5 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

8. The learned AGP submit that, just because the land falls within
the Municipal limits it does not exempt the transaction from the
purview of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, nor does it exempt the Petitioner
from obtaining a Non-Agricultural use permission. Thus, necessary
permission and approvals from the Competent Authority are required
to be verified before registering a document.
It is further contended that, the land of the Petitioner is also
affected by the provisions of the Indian Works of Defence Act 1903,
since concerned land comes within the Red Zone, of the Dehu Road
Ammunition Depot. As such, the Sub Registrar has rightly held that in
absence of necessary permission and sanction from the competent
authorities, as provided under Rule 44 (1)(i) of the Registration Rules,
1961, the document of the Petitioner cannot be registered. Hence, the
permission has been rightly refused by the Respondent No.1–Sub
Registrar Class II Haveli No. 10, Pune, and the District Registrar and
Additional Collector of Stamps, Pune, as such the prayers of the
Petitioner does not deserve consideration, and both Writ Petitions
deserved to be dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGPs appearing for the Authorities, perused documents on
record with their assistance.
The order impugned in this Writ Petition is passed by the
Respondent No.2 Additional Collector and District Registrar, Pune
under Section 72 of the Registration Act. By this order, the
Respondent No.2 has refused to interfere with the order passed by the
Joint Sub Registrar, Pune dated 20.05.2021, holding that the
Page 6 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

Petitioners were liable for penalty in accordance with Sections 25 and
34 of the Registration Act, 1908, due to delay in registering the
document; the land in question is less than the standard area, forming
part of private layout, require Non Agriculture permission, which was
not produced; since the lands come within the Red Zone of Dehu
Ammunition Depot, makes it necessary to produce the NOC of the
Competent Authority as contemplated in Rule 44 (1)(i) of the
Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961.
11. So far as the first objection regarding imposition of penalty on
account of delay in registration of the document is concerned, it has
been rightly pointed out by the Petitioner that after the sale deed was
executed on 30.12.2020, it was submitted for adjudication
immediately. In Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2022, it was submitted for
adjudication on 15.03.2021 and received back on 15.04.2021, while in
Writ Petition No. 4180 of 2022, it was submitted for adjudication on
29.01.2021 and received back on 24.03.2021. The time limit
prescribed for registration of document is four months from the date of
its execution.
Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus:
23. Time for presenting documents.– Subject to the
provisions 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 a 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.
Page 7 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

In both the Writ Petitions, the document has been presented for
registration on 28.04.2021, when the process of registration
commenced. Even going by the outer limit, the period of four months
for the document executed on 30.12.2020 would end on 30.04.2021.
Thus, there is no delay in presenting the document.
Hence, the explanation offered by the Petitioners has not been
appropriately considered by the Respondent No.2 claiming that, the
document was presented twice on 07.04.2021 and 14.04.2021,
through a third person and thereafter it was presented through the
executants of the documents on 28.04.2021, which is beyond
prescribed period entailing in imposition of penalty since penalty was
not paid, it could not be registered. We do not find substance in the
findings so recorded, considering the satisfactory explanation given by
the Petitioners, we find that penalty is not leviable on the said
document.
So far as the other two objections raised by the Respondent No.2
is concerned, reliance is placed on Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra
Registration Rules 1961, which requires the Registering Authority
before accepting any document for registration, to satisfy himself and
ascertain that the document is not prohibited by any existing Central
or State legislation.
Rule 44 (1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961
reads thus:
Page 8 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

“ 44. Certain requirements to be verified before accepting a
document for registration
(1) Before accepting any documents for registration, a
registering officer may not concern himself with its validity,
but shall ascertain–
…
(i) that if the transaction which is indented by the
document, is prohibited by any existing act of Central or
State Government, then the true copy of requisite
permission or No Objection Certificate from the Competent
Authority under the said act, has been attached along with
the document and that the document is not written in
contradiction with any vital term or condition mentioned in
that permission or No Objection Certificate.”
12. The impugned order is passed relying on the aforementioned
Rule claiming that the NOC from the Competent Authority is not
accompanying the document, which is necessary for the Registering
Authority to ascertain its validity before registration of the document.
The first NOC, which was allegedly required to be obtained from
the Competent Authority is under the provisions of Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947,
certifying that the land does not form a fragment, as a result of Sub
Division.
Even the second objection as regards land coming under the Red
Zone is concerned it is also alleged to be governed by the Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947,
requiring a sanctioned layout by the Planning Authority.
Page 9 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

13. Both these objections pertain to non compliance of the
provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. According to us, the registration
of documents is governed by the Registration Act, 1908, whereas the
registration is refused for non-compliance of provisions of
Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947. The applicability of the provisions of both the
enactments i.e. the Registration Act, 1908, and the Maharashtra
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947
operate in two distinct fields. Provisions of one enactment cannot be
read into other enactment unless it is so expressly provided in the Act
itself.
Incidentally, in an identical situation wherein registration of the
sale deed was refused, by registering authority on the ground that
sanctioned layout was not accompanied with the documents sought to
be registered, which was under challenge was declared to be in
violation of the circular issued by the State of Maharashtra
purportedly issued in furtherance of Rule 44 (1)(i) of the
Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961, which has been declared to be
contrary to the provisions of Registration Act in a judicial
pronouncement of this Court in Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors. Vs.
1
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. . While deciding the
aforementioned Writ Petition, this Court has observed that Rule 44(1)
(i) directing the Registering Authority to ascertain whether the
transaction is prohibited by any existing Act of Central Government
or the State Government and requiring permission or no objection
from the Competent Authority, is required to be read down and not
1 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 978
Page 10 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

required to be followed by the registering authority, while Registering
document under Section 34 read with Section 35 of the of
Registration Act, 1908.
It is held that the Rules cannot travel beyond the rule making
power conferred by the parent statute. Since, Rule 44(1)(i) was not in
consonance with Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, it will
have to be read down appropriately.
Relying on the judgment in the case of M/s. Sunderson Vs. State
2
of Maharashtra , it is held that, Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration
Act, 1908, do not give power to the Collector to give directions to the
Sub–Registrar to refuse registration of a document. The provisions
regarding registration of document are enumerated in Registration
Act, 1908, itself. The executive instruction of the State cannot
circumvent a statutory provision.
Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads thus:
“34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.–(1) Subject
to the provisions contained in this Part and in sections 41, 43, 45,
69, 75, 77, 88 and 89, no document shall be registered under this
Act, unless the persons executing such document, or their
representatives, assigns or agents authorized as aforesaid, appear
before the registering officer within the time allowed for
presentation under sections 23, 24, 25 and 26:
Provided that, if owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable
accident all such persons do not so appear, the Registrar, in cases
where the delay in appearing does not exceed four months, may
direct that on payment of a fine not exceeding ten times the
amount of the proper registration fee, in addition to the fine, if any,
payable under section 25, the document may be registered.
2 2008 Mah L. J. 82
Page 11 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

(2) Appearances under sub-section (1) may be
simultaneous or at different times.
(3) The registering officer shall thereupon–
(a) enquire whether or not such document was executed
by the persons by whom it purports to have been
executed;
(b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons
appearing before him and alleging that they have
executed the document; and
(c) in the case of any person appearing as a
representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of
the right of such person so to appear.
(4) Any application for a direction under the proviso
to sub-section (1) may be lodged with a Sub-Registrar, who
shall forthwith forward it to the Registrar to whom he is
subordinate.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to copies of decrees
or orders.
Upon perusal of Section 34 Sub Clause (3), it is evident that the
Registering Authority is supposed to enquire that the document
executed is by the same person who purports to have executed it;
satisfy about the identity of such person appearing before him; and in
case a person is represented through an agent satisfy himself of right
of such person to appear. Thus, upon examining the scope of the
aforementioned provision, this Court has held that the Registering
Authority cannot travel beyond the statutory provisions.
The State Government is thus not empowered to issue directions
to the Sub–Registrar, to desist from registration of a document on
Page 12 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

account of breach of conditions of the Maharashtra Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
The above position of law, laid down by this Court as recorded in
paragraph nos. 32, 35 and 38 of the judgment in case of Govind
Ramling Solpure and Ors. (Supra), is reproduced hereinbelow, which
read thus:
“32. In our view, the scope of enquiry made by the registering
authority under sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act is
limited by the Registration Act to the factum of execution and
identity of the person executing the document other than the levy
of stamp duty, collection of registration charges and the completion
of procedural formalities such as attestation etc. In our view, the
provisions of the Registration Act are self-contained and neither
any rule can be framed by the State Government which would be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Parent Act conferring
powers to frame the rules nor any circular can be issued which was
contrary to the provisions of the Parent Act. This Court in the above
judgment has held that no subordinate legislation can control the
transactions which fall out of the scope of the Parent Act. The
principles laid down by this Court in the said judgment of Mis
Sundarsons vs. State of Maharashtra applies to the facts of this
case. We are respectfully bound by the principles laid down by this
Court in the said judgment. We do not propose to take any different
view in the present matter.
33….
34….
35 In our view, there is no substance in the submissions made
by the learned Government Pleader that registration of the sale
deeds/transfer deeds in respect of the plots/properties fall under
sections 45 and 47-B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code have
been rightly banned/prohibited by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5
being in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention
Page 13 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. In our view,
the Sub-Registrar while registering the document under sections 34
and 35 of the Registration Act is not an adjudicating authority and
has no power of adjudication as to whether the transaction which is
subject matter of the document lodged for registration is validly
executed or not or is prohibited by any law or not. If the
respondents wanted to confer such powers upon the Sub-Registrar
or registering authority, such powers would have been conferred
specifically by carrying out appropriate amendment by following
due procedure in the Parent Act and not by framing rules or by
issuing circular.”
36….
37…..
38. In our view, the impugned circular dated 12-7-2021, exercising
the powers under Rule 44(1)(i) of the Rules being contrary to
sections 34, 35 and 69 of the Registration Act, thus, deserves to be
quashed and set aside. Rule 44(1)(i) of Rules deserves to be read
down and not required to be followed by registering authority while
registering the document under sections 34 r/w. Section 35 of the
Registration Act.
From the observation in the foregoing paragraphs, it can be
discerned that, the circular issued by the State Government,
directing the Registering Authority to insist for certain other
documents to be accompanied while presenting a document for
Registration, has been held to be contrary to Sections 34 and 35 of
the Registration Act, 1908. Rule 44(1)(i) of the Registration Rules,
1961 is also directed to be read down, so as to make them
consistent with Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration, Act, which
squarely covers the case of the Petitioners in the present Writ
Petitions.
Page 14 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::

WP 4180, 4179 OF 2022, J.DOC

14. Hence, in view of the aforementioned position of law as laid
down by this Court in case of Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors.
(Supra) the orders impugned becomes unsustainable and are
accordingly quashed and set aside.
15. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (A).
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Page 15 of 15

Rajeshri Aher
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:56:38 :::