PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE Vs. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The action of the Respondents in issuing the communication dtd. 12/5/2022 at Exhibit-E from pages 51 to 53 cannot be sustained.

(2.) The answering Respondent is the 1st Respondent, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-2, Haveli No. 13, Pune City, Pune. The documents presented to him were a set of nine sale deeds in respect of the Petitioner's property in Taluka-Haveli. These were lodged for registration after the applicable stamp duty was paid. The Petition says that the Petitioner was asked to attend the office again and again on four separate occasions, each time seeking completion of the procedure under Sec. 35 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Petitioner finally submitted a letter in writing on 10/5/2022 and then made a representation on 13/5/2022. Rather than compliance, the Petitioner was shown a communication dtd. 12/5/2022 from the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent saying that permission of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 was required and under Rule 44(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 ("Registration Rules"). This is totally incorrect. A copy of the communication in question is at Exhibit-E from page 51.

(3.) In Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors ,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 978 a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad (RD Dhanuka, J, as he then was and SG Mehare, J), on 5/5/2022 considered precisely this Rule. The Bench also considered a circular in question. Paragraphs 36, 38, 39 and the operative portion of that order at pages 81 to 83 read thus: