Bombay High Court
Grand Centrum Realty Llp Thr. Its ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. The G. P. And ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:26797-DB
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8411 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8412 OF 2025
Grand Centrum Realty LLP
a Limited Liability Partnership registered
under the provisions of the Limited Liability
Partnership Act, 2008, and having
its registered address at Plot No.1,
Lokmanya Colony Commercial Complex,
Pandharpur Road, Sangli- 416410,
Miraj, Maharashtra,
Through its designated Partner,
Kishor Prabhakar Patwardhan .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Government Pleader,
High Court, Bombay.
2. The Sub-Registrar of Assurances-1, Jat,
District - Sangli, having his office at
New Administrative Building, Tehsil Aavar,
Jat, Miraj, Sangli - 416410. .....Respondents
Mr. Prerak Sharma, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for the Respondents in WP-8411/2025.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for the Respondents in WP-8412/2025.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd JULY 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th JULY 2025.
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
Judgment :-(Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
all the parties, heard finally. Both the Petitions involve the same
question of law on identical facts and hence both the Petitions are
being disposed by this Judgment and Order.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India assails orders dated 16 th June 2025 passed by the Respondent
No.2- Sub-Registrar of Assurances-I, Jat, District -Sangli, bearing
Outward No. Document registration/ 162/2025 & 163/2025 and also
seeks a direction to the Respondent No.2 to register two Agreements
for Sale, both dated 6th March 2018 executed by and between the
Petitioner and Vidhyarthi Sahayak Mandal, Sangli, under the
provisions of the Registration Act of 1908.
3. The Petitioner's case is that a trust namely Vidhyarthi
Sahayak Mandal, Sangli desirous of selling its properties sought
permission of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Kolhapur Region,
Kolhapur to transfer its properties to the Petitioner by making an
Application No.103/2017, under the provisions of the Maharashtra
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Joint Charity Commissioner by its order
dated 31st January 2018 allowed the Application and granted
permission to the trust to alienate its properties to the Petitioner
herein.
4. Pursuant to the said order, certain legal proceedings
ensued, initiated by parties having adverse interest and a series of Writ
Petitions were filed and pending before this Court. By order dated 26 th
April 2018, this Court in one of the Writ Petitions had directed that
till the next date, the trust shall not execute any deed of conveyance in
favour of the newly impleaded parties in those Petitions. According to
the Petitioner, however, the Agreements for Sale was already executed
by and between the parties on 6 th March 2018. Because of the
litigation pending before this Court, the said agreements were not
lodged for registration with the Respondent No.2. On 8 th May 2025,
this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions pending before it and the Ad-
interim relief as above was vacated. In these circumstances, the
Petitioner presented the Agreements for Sale for registration, before
the Respondent No.2 on 16 th June 2025. In the meantime, on 30 th
May 2025, the Petitioner deposited the necessary stamp duty with the
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
Collector of Stamps, Sangli pursuant to the order of adjudication
dated 22nd February 2019 passed by the Competent Authority. The
necessary endorsement under Section 41 of the Maharashtra Stamp
Act, 1958 was made by the Collector of Stamps on the said
documents.
5. However, the Respondent No.2 refused to register the
Agreements for Sale presented to him for registration on the ground
that under Section 23 of the Registration Act of 1908, the statutory
time for presenting documents for registration is four months from the
date of its execution. Since the documents sought to be registered
were executed on 6th March 2018 and presented on 16th June 2025,
the Registrar had no power to register the said documents beyond the
prescribed period as mandated by law. It is this order of 16 th June
2025 which is assailed by the Petitioner in the present Petitions.
6. Mr. Prerak Shah, learned counsel appears for the
Petitioner and Ms. M. S. Bane, learned AGP represents the State.
7. Heard both the counsels and perused the records with
their assistance.
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
8. It is not in dispute that the Agreements for Sale were
executed on 6th March 2018 and the same were presented on 16 th June
2025 i.e. after a period of more than seven years after its execution. It
is also undisputed that there were proceedings pending before this
Court in respect of the Sale of the trust properties which were the
subject matter of the Agreements for Sale. There was also an interim
order in one of the proceedings restraining the trust from alienating
the subject properties, even though the Agreements for Sale were
already executed on the date of the interim order. Nevertheless, by
orders of this Court the said properties were prohibited from being
alienated during the pendency of those proceedings.
9. Mr. Sharma, placed reliance on a decision of this Court in
the matter of Nestor Builders and Developers Private Limited and Anr.
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 In paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the
decision in Nestor Builders (supra), this Court has discussed the
provisions of Section 23, 23A, 25 and 26 of the Registration Act, 1908
and has concluded that a cumulative reading of the said provisions
clearly demonstrates the intention of the legislature that if a document
in a given situation cannot be presented for registration within the
1 2015 SCC Online Bom. 3480
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
period of four months prescribed under Section 23 of the Registration
Act, 1908 then it can still be accepted for registration beyond the
prescribed period. However, this would necessarily be from the delay
on the part of the party presenting the document beyond the
prescribed period was bonafide and not intentional and was on
account of a genuine cause beyond the control of such a party. This
Court also observed that a legal right accrued to a party to get a
document registered as per the provisions of the Registration Act
cannot stand defeated when reasons exists which are beyond the
control of the party presenting the document for registration.
10. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the delay was
purely attributable to the continued restraint order passed by a Court
of law. The stay was vacated only on 8 th May 2025 after which
immediately on 16th June 2025, the said documents were presented by
the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2 for registration. The period
between 26th April 2018 i.e. the date on which the restraint order was
passed by this Court in respect of the said properties and 8 th May
2025 must be excluded for the purpose of calculation of the period of
limitation under the provisions of the Registration Act. Thus, the
901-902-8411 & 8412-2025.doc
entire period available for the Petitioner to present the documents for
registration, excluding the period of existence of the restraint order,
does not exceed a total period of four months. In these circumstances,
the bonafide delay beyond the control of the Petitioner clearly not
attributable to any intentional or deliberate act or negligence on the
part of the Petitioner, would be required to be excluded in permitting
the Petitioner to avail registration of the documents in question.
11. Considering the above discussion, we are of the considered
view that the time taken during the pendency of the restraint order
must be excluded while computing the period of limitation under the
Registration Act. Thus, the orders assailed herein are quashed and set
aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to accept the Agreements of
Sale, both dated 6th March 2018 for registration under the provisions
of Registration Act.
12. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order
as to costs.
13. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
