Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Laxmi Ishwar More, filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 03/02/2015 issued by the District Collector, Nagpur (respondent No.2) to the Joint District Registrar and Sub-Registrar (respondents No.3 and 4), directing them to verify whether transactions sought to be registered were preceded by appropriate orders for conversion of the property and whether the property was located in a sanctioned layout. The petitioner alleged that on 03/06/2015, when she approached the Sub-Registrar's office to register a sale deed, she was informed that registration could not be undertaken because the property was not within a sanctioned layout, as per the said communication. The petitioner contended that the Registering Authority had no jurisdiction to refuse registration on such grounds, relying on Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which limit the enquiry to the execution of the document and the identity of the executant. The respondents argued that the communication was issued to ensure compliance with revenue requirements. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Registering Authority's powers under Sections 34 and 35 are confined to verifying the execution of the document and do not extend to examining whether the property is in a sanctioned layout. The court quashed the communication dated 03/02/2015 and directed the respondents to register the petitioner's document if it was otherwise in order, relying on earlier decisions of the same court in Gopal Dwarkaprasad Pandey v. District Collector, Damodar Laxman Navare v. State of Maharashtra, and Chairman/Secretary, Deep Apartment CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra.
Headnote
A) Registration Act - Refusal to Register - Sections 34, 35 Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Scope of Enquiry - The petitioner challenged a communication directing the Registering Authority to verify whether the property is in a sanctioned layout before registration. The court held that the Registering Authority's enquiry under Sections 34 and 35 is limited to the execution and identity of the executant, and cannot extend to the legality of the transaction or the sanctioned layout. The communication was quashed and the respondents were directed to register the document if otherwise in order. (Paras 1-5) B) Registration Act - Ultra Vires Directions - Sections 34, 35 Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Administrative Instructions - The District Collector's communication dated 03/02/2015 directing verification of sanctioned layout before registration was held to be beyond the scope of the Act and without jurisdiction. The court relied on precedents including Gopal Dwarkaprasad Pandey v. District Collector, Damodar Laxman Navare v. State of Maharashtra, and Chairman/Secretary, Deep Apartment CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registering Authority can refuse registration of a sale deed on the ground that the property is not located in a sanctioned layout, in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Final Decision
The court quashed the communication dated 03/02/2015 issued by the District Collector, Nagpur, and directed the respondents to register the petitioner's document if it is otherwise in order, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Registration authority cannot refuse registration on ground of unsanctioned layout
- Scope of enquiry under Sections 34 and 35 of Indian Registration Act
- 1908 is limited
- Communication directing verification of sanctioned layout is ultra vires
