[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Navratana Lands And Estate Pvt Ltd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Dept ... on 6 April, 2026
Author: N.J.Jamadar
Bench: N.J.Jamadar
2026:BHC-AS:16982
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11186 OF 2025
Navratna Lands & Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Amey Deshpande, for Petitioners.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Govt. Pleader with Ms. Snehal Jadhav, AGP for State.
PI Samadhan C., EOW, Nashik City, present.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 6 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
SWAROOP
SHARAD
PHADKE raises an issue of the justifiability of the actions of the authorities of the State
Digitally signed by
SWAROOP SHARAD
PHADKE
Date: 2026.04.09
22:58:28 +0530
in preventing the Petitioners from getting an instrument registered under the
Registration Act, 1908.
3. The background facts in which the aforesaid issue arises, can be
stated, in brief, as under :
3.1 Nashik Diocesan Council Trust is a Public Trust registered under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The said Trust was the
holder of the immovable properties bearing CTS No.6874 (part), 6875, 6876,
6877, 6878, 6880, 6881, 6882, 6883 (part) having original Plot Nos.288 and
SSP 1/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
289, final Plot No.358, admeasuring 2 Hector 86.36 Are, situated at Nashik
(the Trust Properties). On 22 February 2001, the Trust obtained permission of
the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, for sale of the portions of the properties,
admeasuring 26,000 sq. mtrs., in favour of M/s. Thakkar Developers or its
nominees, under Section 36 of the Act, 1950.
3.2 The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, in their capacity of the nominees of M/s.
Thakkar Developers, purchased land admeasuring 2,000 sq. mtrs., and
1132.80 sq. mtrs., respectively, under the registered Sale Deed dated 13
March 2001 (the subject properties). The names of the Petitioners were
mutated to the property card of the subject properties.
3.3 The Petitioners assert, the challenge to the order of the Charity
Commissioner granting sanction for sale of the Trust property under Section
36 of the Act, 1950 was negatived by this Court and the Supreme Court.
Nashik Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. initiated proceeding in respect of
the Trust Property. Initially, a suit was instituted by the said Company, being
SCS No.415 of 2014. Proceedings were also filed before the revenue
authorities assailing the mutation entries.
3.4 Eventually, by an order dated 27 June 2022, the State Government
dismissed the Revision Application. However, by an order dated 14 October
2024, the State Government reviewed its earlier order dated 27 June 2022
and the said order was cancelled. The Petitioners have preferred a Petition
SSP 2/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
against the said order before this Court.
3.5 On 5 April 1991, the Trust, under a Lease Agreement, had granted
lease in respect of the land admeasuring 9793.872 sq. mtrs., situated at
Sharanpur Gaothan, Dist. Nashik, and the structures standing thereon, to the
Commissioner of Police (R2), initially for a term of three years. Before the
term of the lease expired, the Trust executed a Lease Agreement with the
Respondent No.2 on 11 June 1992 for a further term of 21 years commencing
from 1 November 1993 to 31 October 2014.
3.6 It is the claim of the Petitioners that, after the expiry of the said term,
the lease has not been renewed. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into an
agreement with Petitioner No.3 to sell the subject lands totally admeasuring
3132.80 sq. mtrs. Substantial consideration was parted with by Petitioner
No.3. When the Petitioners approached the Registrar of Assurances (R4) to
register the sale deed, Respondent No.4 refused to register the said deed. No
reasons were provided for the refusal. Thus, the Petitioners obtained
information under the Right to Information Act. Thereupon, it transpired that
the Deputy Commissioner of Police (R5) had addressed a communication to
the Joint District Registrar (R3) to instruct the Sub-Registrars under the
latter's supervision not to register the instrument in respect of the properties
bearing Survey Nos.6875, 6878, 6883 and 6887, on which the establishments
of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Assistants Commissioner of Police and
SSP 3/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
the Riot Control Police, Nashik, were situated.
3.7 On the basis of the aforesaid communication, Respondent No.3 had, in
turn, instructed all the Sub-Registrars, including Respondent No.4 not to
register any instrument in respect of the subject properties.
3.8 The Petitioners have thus invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court,
questioning the authority and the alleged high-handed action of the police
authorities to direct the authorities under the Registration Act, 1908, not to
register the instrument in respect of the properties of which Petitioner Nos.1
and 2 are the owners. The action of the Respondent No.4 in refusing to
register the instrument on the basis of the communication addressed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, sans any authority, is also stated to be wholly
illegal and in breach of the statutory duties of the Registrar of Assurances.
4. The response of the State Government to the Petition was of evasion.
Time was sought by the learned Govt. Pleader on 22 August and 6 October
2025. No affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the State Government. On
23 March 2026, again an adjournment was sought. Mrs. Jadhav, learned
AGP, sought time to take instructions on the ground that, though a
communication was received from the Respondents, further instructions were
yet not received. By way of indulgence, one week time was granted.
5. Today, Mrs. Bhide, learned Govt. Pleader, appeared for the
Respondents and submitted that, though an affidavit in reply could not be
SSP 4/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
filed, the State opposes the Petition.
6. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the
authorities of the State have acted in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner.
The police department, which claims to be the lessee of a portion of the
subject property, has no authority to prohibit the registration of the instrument
by addressing a communication to the authorities under the Registration Act,
1908. There is no restraint by any Court on the transfer of the subject
properties and execution and registration of the instruments in regard thereto.
In such a situation, the impugned communication and the consequent action
of the Respondent No.4 to refuse to register the instrument deserve to be
quashed, and a mandamus be issued to Respondent No.4 to register the sale
deed.
7. A feeble attempt was made by Mrs. Bhide to justify the action of the
authorities.
8. The aforesaid narration of facts makes it explicitly clear that the Trust
has sold the subject properties in the year 2001 after obtaining sanction of the
Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act, 1950. The names of
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were mutated to the property card of the subject
property as owners thereof. It does not appear that any civil Court has
passed an order which throws a cloud of doubt over the title of the Petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 or, otherwise, restrains the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 from
SSP 5/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
exercising the incident of ownership.
9. From the perusal of the impugned communication addressed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police (R5) to the Joint Registrar (R3), it also
becomes crystal clear that the Police Department claims that its
establishments are situated on the portions of the subject properties.
Evidently, the claim of the police department stems from the lease granted by
the Trust before the sale of the subject properties. At best, the police
department is the lessee, whose term of lease is yet to expire, or the lessee
holding over.
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the justifiability of the action of the
Respondent No. 5 in instructing the Registrar of Assurances not to register
the instruments in respect of the subject properties and the consequent
refusal to register the instruments, warrants consideration.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to note that, no effort was made by the
Respondents to justify the action by filing an affidavit in reply. It seems,
nobody is willing to take the responsibility for the impugned action. It defies
comprehension as to what authority the police department has to prohibit the
registration of the instruments. Respondent No.4's communication reveals
that the authorities were sought to be restrained from registering the
instruments as the establishments of police were situated on the subject
properties. It needs to be emphasised that the police department has no
SSP 6/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
better rights or privileges than the private litigant or citizen, when a dispute
arises over the possessory or proprietary rights of the police department in
relation to immovable properties. The action of the police department was,
therefore, sans any semblance of authority and wholly illegal.
12. What exacerbates the situation is the abdication of the statutory duties
by the Registrar under the Registration Act 1908. Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908, stipulates the documents which are required to be
compulsorily registered. Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17,
non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare,
assign limit or extinguish, any right, title or interest to or in immovable property
of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards, are required to be compulsorily
registered. Section 49 of the Act 1908, provides the consequences of non-
registration. An unregistered document shall not affect any immovable
property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property. A refusal to register the document, which is required
to be compulsorily registered, thus entails the consequence of frustrating the
transaction between the parties as no legal effect can be given to the
instrument evidencing such transaction for want of registration.
13. Section 32 of the Registration Act 1908 provides for presentation of the
document for registration. Section 34 stipulates that, subject to the provisions
referred to in it, no document shall be registered unless the persons executing
SSP 7/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
such document, or their representatives, assigns or agents authorized,
appear before the registering officer within the time allowed for presentation.
Sub-section (3) of section 34 incorporates the duties of the registering officer
to enquire whether or not such document was executed by the purported
executants, and satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing
before him and alleging that they have executed the document and the
representative, assign or agent of the executant.
14. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 casts a duty on the registering officer to
register the document if the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. Sub-
Section (3) of Section 35 spells out the circumstances in which the registering
officer shall refuse to register the document, namely, where the execution of
the document is denied or the executant appears to be a minor, an idiot or a
lunatic or the executant is dead, and his representative or assign denies its
execution. Thus under the scheme of the Registration Act, 1908, if the
requisite conditions for registration of a document are satisfied, the Registrar
has no discretion to deny the registration of the instrument. The refusal to
register the document for want of execution or otherwise, as enumerated in
sub-section (3) of Section 35, has to be for the specified reasons only.
15. It would be contextually relevant to note that Chapter XII of the
Registration Act 1908 contains provisions under the caption" Of Refusal to
Register". Section 71 mandates that where the Sub-Registrar refuses to
SSP 8/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
register a document, he shall make an order of refusal and record reasons for
such order. An appeal is provided under Section 72 from the orders of the
Sub-Registrar refusing registration of a document on the ground other than
denial of execution. Even when a document is refused to be registered on the
ground that the executant has denied the execution, under Section 73 of the
Registration Act, 1908, the aggrieved party has a right to apply to the
Registrar in order to establish his right to have the document registered. In the
event, the Registrar refuses the registration of the document, he is required to
make an order and record his reasons for the same under Section 72 of the
Act. Section 77 provides an avenue to the aggrieved party to institute a suit
before the civil court where the Registrar refuses to order the document to be
registered under Section 72 or Section 76, for a decree directing that the
document be registered.
16. The aforesaid statutory regime underscores that the Registering Officer
is not free to refuse the registration of a document at his sweet will. The
refusal to register a document can only be for the specified reasons, backed
by an order of refusal and recording of reasons in the prescribed Book. An
appeal is provided against an order of the Sub-Registrar before the Registrar.
Ultimately, the refusal to register an instrument can be tested before the Civil
Court, by filing a suit.
17. In the case at hand, evidently the Registering Authorities have not
SSP 9/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
resorted to any of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 which enable
the Registering Officer to refuse the registration. On the contrary,
Respondent No.3 seems to have blindly followed the directive of Respondent
No. 5 not to register the instrument and, in turn, instructed the Sub-Registrars
under his supervision, not to register the instrument in respect of the subject
land. The Registering Officers have clearly abdicated their duty under the
Registration Act, 1908.
18. The aforesaid conduct of the authorities of the State brings to the fore
the aspect of abuse of the authority by Respondent No.5. Had it been a case
that the Respondent No.5 addressed the communication, during the course of
investigation in connection with an offence bona fide, probably different
considerations would have come into play. On the contrary, it seems that,
Responder No. 5 had resorted to a similar device while seeking the deletion
of the names of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from the property card. An interim
order passed by this Court in WP(ST)/21179/2025 dated 26th June 2025,
records the manner in which Respondent No. 5 had tried to interfere in the
matter of the mutation of names of the parties to the property card.
19. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging an order dated
03.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2-City Survey Officer No.1, Nashik,
whereby mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners almost 25 years
ago, stood deleted.
3. The material brought to the notice of this Court indicates a serious state
of affairs, for the reason that the respondent No.2 has purportedly exercised
SSP 10/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
suo motu review powers under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, while passing the impugned order.
4. It is to be noted that the impugned order itself indicates the following:
(a) The impugned order passed purportedly on the basis of exercising suo
moto review powers, had the effect of deleting mutation entries that have
existed in favour of the petitioners for almost 25 years.
(b) There is blatant violation of principles of natural justice, as the order
itself records that despite the petitioners remaining present before
respondent No.2, seeking time of 15 days to file their replies, the
respondent No.2 thought it fit to grant only 3 hours to the petitioners and
other respondents to the said notices and thereafter, passed the impugned
order in a tearing hurry.
(c) The detailed order passed on 03.06.2025 on the basis of notices issued
only on 28.05.2025, prima facie indicates that either the order was already
prepared or it was passed with predetermined mind.
(d) The power of review, when it can have the effect on the rights of private
parties, is to be exercised on an application and that too, when such an
application is made within 90 days of the earlier order making the mutation
entries. These factors were obviously absent in the present case, showing
perverse exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No.2 under Section 258 of
the said Code.
(e) References given in the impugned order prima facie indicate that the
proceeding itself was initiated at the behest of certain communications, inter
alia, received from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Nashik City,
who can have no concern with the aforesaid issue of mutation entries,
thereby indicating extraneous reasons, leading to the impugned order.
5. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners
that in such extraordinary circumstances, this Court may consider, not only
granting stay to the impugned order, but clarifying that such stay would
mean that the mutation entries validly existing in favour of the petitioners for
about 25 years, would remain in effect and revived, despite the impugned
order.
.......
8. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay to the impugned order
dated 03.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2, meaning thereby that the
mutation entries existing in favour of the petitioners as well as others
adversely affected by the impugned order, shall stand revived, during the
pendency of this petition."
(emphasis supplied)
20. The aforesaid observations of this Court fortify the view this Court is
persuaded to take that, the police department has abused its position as an
SSP 11/13
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 22:06:03 :::
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
authority entrusted with law enforcement duties, to gain an undue advantage
in the matter of the possessory and proprietary rights it asserts over the
subject property by influencing the decisions of the authorities under the
Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the impugned communications indeed
deserve to be condemned, quashed and set aside as they have the
propensity to undermine the rule of law. The acts and conduct of the
authorities of the State also warrant imposition of exemplary costs. The State
would, however, be at liberty to fix the responsibility of the erring officers and
recover the costs from them. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
21. Hence the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned communication dated 29th January 2025 addressed by
the Respondent No. 5 restraining the registration of the instruments in
respect of the subject property and the consequent instruction issued
by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 4 not to register the
instruments stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) Respondent No. 4 shall register the sale deed if presented for
registration in accordance to the provisions of the Registration Act,
1908 and the Rules thereunder, and the said instrument is otherwise in
order.
55 wp 11186 of 2025.doc
(iv) The Respondent No. 1-State shall pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to
Petitioners within a period of one month from the date of uploading of
this order.
(v) The Respondent No.1-State shall be at liberty to fix the responsibilities
of the erring officers and recover the costs from them.
(vi) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
