The Bombay High Court set aside the Collector's demand for a No-Objection from a co-operative society before registering a consent decree, reinforcing that the Registration Act mandates registration of conveyance documents without extraneous statutory hurdles.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sanjay Narang and Rachna Narang, sought registration of a consent decree dated 16 December 2022 that conveyed ownership of a shop (186 sq. ft.) and an adjoining restaurant premises (2,530 sq. ft.) situated at 143 Marine Drive, Mumbai. The decree arose from a settlement of Suit No. 621 of 2019 between the original owners, Khorshed Tehemton Udwadia and Dr. Adi Nazir, and the petitioners' company, Mars Enterprises & Hospitality Private Limited.
Key Facts
- 5 December 2014: Udwadia and Nazir received five fully paid-up shares (Rs.50 each) in Soona Mahal Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (Share Nos. 7941-7945).
- 9 January 2018: Udwadia executed a sale agreement to sell the shop premises to Mars Enterprises.
- 26 March 2019: Udwadia and Nazir filed Suit No. 621 of 2019 against Mars Enterprises, with the Society named as a formal party but no relief sought against it.
- 13 December 2022: Parties executed Consent Terms, stipulating that the terms would operate as a conveyance of the Suit Premises to the petitioners.
- 16 December 2022: The Court decreed the suit in accordance with the Consent Terms.
- 28 February 2024: The decree was sent to the Collector of Stamps for stamp duty assessment; Rs.91,58,300 was determined payable.
- 24 May 2024: Petitioners paid the stamp duty.
- 12 June 2024: The sealed Consent Decree was forwarded to the Sub-registrar on 3 July 2024.
- 15 July 2024: Petitioners paid document handling charges of Rs.1,640 and registration charges of Rs.30,000.
- 16 July 2024: Sub-registrar issued a letter stating that a No-Objection from the Collector was required because the land belonged to the Collector.
- 22 August 2024: Petitioners applied to the Collector for a No-Objection and expressed readiness to pay the transfer fee.
- 2 September 2024: Collector requested additional documents, including a membership certificate and a No-Objection from the Society.
- 26 September 2024: The Society sent a letter objecting to the transfer and refusing to issue a No-Objection.
- 10 October 2024: Petitioners filed the present writ petition.
- 21 April 2025: Petitioners obtained an order under Sections 22/23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 declaring them deemed members of the Society (pending adjudication).
- 24 June 2024: Petitioners filed a rejoinder to the Collector's objections.
- 17 August 2026: Judgment delivered.
Procedural History
- 10 October 2024: Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2024 filed before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- 21 April 2025: Application under Sections 22/23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 allowed by Deputy Registrar (pending).
- 17 August 2026: Judgment pronounced.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners: Argue that the Consent Decree is a final conveyance document, that Section 17 of the Registration Act mandates its registration, and that no statutory provision empowers the Collector to demand a No-Objection from the Society.
- Respondents 1-3 (Collector, Sub-registrar, State): Rely on Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and Section 23 of the Registration Act, contending that the Collector may impose a No-Objection as a pre-condition.
- Respondent 4 (Society): Claims encroachment on the premises and refuses to issue a No-Objection, asserting that the Collector should not make the Society liable for the omission.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek a direction to the Collector to decide their application dated 22 August 2024 without insisting on a No-Objection from the Society, and to permit the Sub-registrar to register the Consent Decree dated 16 December 2022.
The Legal Issue
Whether the Collector of Mumbai has statutory authority, under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, to condition registration of a consent decree on obtaining a No-Objection from a co-operative society.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The Consent Decree, executed on 13 December 2022 and decreed on 16 December 2022, operates as a deed of conveyance and is covered by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
- The decree has attained finality; no party has challenged it, satisfying the requirement of finality for registration.
- Section 23 of the Registration Act prescribes a four-month period for presenting a decree; the petitioners complied by forwarding the sealed decree on 3 July 2024.
- The Collector’s insistence on a No-Objection lacks any statutory basis; the Court’s earlier decision in Aspi Chinoy & Anr v. State of Maharashtra (and its affirmation by the Supreme Court) rejects such a requirement.
- The Government Resolution dated 7 July 2017 authorises the Collector to levy transfer fees but does not empower him to withhold registration.
For the Respondents
- Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 imposes restrictions on transfer of government or nazul land, and the petitioners contend that the land falls within its ambit.
- Section 23 of the Registration Act was allegedly breached because the decree was not presented within four months of the order.
- The Society’s objection raises a legitimate concern of encroachment; therefore, a No-Objection is necessary to protect public interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by examining the nature of the Consent Decree. It noted that clauses 3, 11 and 12 of the Consent Terms expressly state that the document operates as a conveyance and that the petitioners bear all stamp duty, registration and transfer fees. Accordingly, the decree satisfies the criteria of a registrable instrument under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
"The Respondent No. 2 - Collector should have notified the transfer fee as prescribed to enable registration of the Consent Decree. However, he chose to tread on a different path by insisting on ‘No-Objection’ from the Society, which the law did not mandate."
The Court then addressed the Collector’s reliance on Section 37A of the MLRC. A careful reading of the provision and its Statement of Objects and Reasons revealed that it applies only to government or nazul land. The Suit Premises, having been privately owned and transferred through a consent decree, fall outside the statutory sweep of Section 37A. Hence, the Collector could not invoke this provision.
Regarding Section 23 of the Registration Act, the Court observed that the four-month limitation is triggered from the date of the decree. The decree was sealed on 12 June 2024 and forwarded to the Sub-registrar on 3 July 2024, well within the prescribed period. The Collector’s contention that the timeline was breached therefore “cuts no ice.”
The Court also relied on precedent. In Aspi Chinoy & Anr v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that the Collector could not demand prior approval for the transfer of flats situated on land owned by the Collector. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the State’s appeal, affirmed that the requirement of a No-Objection is not applicable where the transaction is a private conveyance and the decree is final.
Having found no statutory or jurisprudential support for the Collector’s stance, the Court concluded that the insistence on a No-Objection was an “obstructionist approach” to the execution of a legally binding decree.
The Verdict
The petition is allowed. The Court directs the Collector to decide the petitioners’ application dated 22 August 2024 without insisting on a No-Objection from the Society, thereby permitting the Sub-registrar to register the Consent Decree dated 16 December 2022. No order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Registration Cannot Be Stalled by Extraneous Conditions
- Practitioners must ensure that a decree satisfies the criteria of Section 17, Registration Act; once satisfied, the Collector cannot impose additional conditions not found in the statute.
- Evidence of payment of stamp duty and compliance with the four-month filing period under Section 23 will defeat objections based on procedural delay.
Section 37A Applies Only to Government or Nazul Land
- Lawyers should verify the land’s classification before invoking Section 37A; private conveyances, even when situated on land administered by the Collector, are outside its scope.
- Reliance on Aspi Chinoy remains strong where the transaction involves a final decree and no pending challenge.
Co-operative Society Objections Do Not Bind the Collector
- A society’s internal dispute does not automatically translate into a statutory requirement for a No-Objection.
- If a society raises encroachment or other substantive issues, those must be litigated separately; they cannot be used to block registration of a valid decree.
Take-away for practitioners:
- Verify finality of the decree before filing for registration.
- Document compliance with stamp duty and filing timelines.
- Cite Aspi Chinoy and the present judgment when confronting Collector objections.
- Separate substantive land-use disputes from registration matters to avoid procedural delays.
