Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of sale deeds for alleged violations of the Fragmentation Act or lack of NA permission.

The Petitioners purchased two residential plots (Nos. 21 and 22) in Talavade, Pune, and executed sale deeds on 30.12.2020.

The Sub-Registrar refused registration on 20.05.2021, citing: (a) violation of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947; (b) lack of Non-Agricultural (NA) permission; and (c) the land’s location in a "Red Zone" near a military depot.

On appeal under Section 72 of the Registration Act, 1908, the District Registrar upheld the refusal and further alleged a delay in presentation, seeking penalties under Sections 25 and 34.

The Petitioners challenged these orders, asserting the documents were presented within the statutory four-month period and that the Registering Authority exceeded its jurisdiction.

The court primarily applied Sections 23, 34, and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908, which limit the Sub-Registrar’s inquiry to the factum of execution and the identity of the parties.

It relied on the precedent *Govind Ramling Solpure v. State of Maharashtra* (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 978), which held that Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961—requiring authorities to ascertain if a transaction is prohibited by other laws—must be "read down" as it cannot override the Parent Act.

The court also cited *M/s. Sunderson v. State of Maharashtra* (2008 Mah L. J. 82) to affirm that executive instructions cannot circumvent statutory registration duties.

The Court found that the Petitioners presented the sale deeds on 28.04.2021, which was within the four-month window from the execution date of 30.12.2020, rendering the demand for delay penalties illegal.

Regarding the substantive grounds for refusal, the Court reasoned that the Registration Act is a self-contained code; the Sub-Registrar is not an "adjudicating authority" empowered to determine the validity of a transaction under the Fragmentation Act or land-use zones.

The Court emphasized that Rule 44(1)(i) of the 1961 Rules cannot expand the scope of Sections 34 and 35 of the Act.

Since the Sub-Registrar’s duty is limited to verifying execution and identity, refusing registration for lack of "Red Zone" NOCs or fragmented land status was an extra-jurisdictional act.

It held that the Registering Authority cannot travel beyond the statutory criteria of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act.

The impugned orders dated 21.12.2021 and 24.03.2021 were quashed and set aside.

The Court made the Rule absolute, effectively directing the Respondents to register the sale deeds without insisting on permissions from other departments or imposing delay penalties.