Ponda sub-registrar, State registrar fined for not registering sale deed

The order was passed by a three-member corm consisting of President Jayant S Prabhu and two members Savita Kurtarker and Cynthia Colaco.

“The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to register the Deed of Sale of the complainant within thirty (30) days of the receipt of this order. The opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to the complainant. The said amount of Rs 10,000 should be deducted from the salary of the officer who is responsible for illegally withholding the registration of the sale deed,” reads the order. 

The complaint was filed by businessman Milind Tendulkar, resident of Shiroda, against Civil cum Sub-Registrar of Ponda and State Registrar cum Head of Notary Services.

In brief the case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a flat bearing No 1-C in the building ‘Janaki Apartments’ on the first floor of Building ‘B’ in the Sambhari Residency, situated at Dhavli. 

Thereafter, he approached on numerous occasions and requested the Sub-Registrar to hand over the original registered Sale Deed but was told that the entire project “Sambhari Residency” which includes the complainant’s flat was under litigation and that interim stay was obtained by interested parties from the Administrative Tribunal.

Tendulkar argued that the opposite parties have no right to withhold his Deed of Sale as there is no explicit interim stay order restraining his Sale Deed being registered. 

Tendulkar complained that he had patiently waited for two years with the expectation that the opposite parties would hand over the deed of sale to him. The complainant added that he suffered losses as he had to avail loan from a financial institution with higher rate of interest as he could not mortgage his flat by executing the English mortgage by depositing the original Sale Deed.

As per the Opposite Parties presenting of Deed of Sale does not mean that it is required to be registered

According to the Opposite Parties, the Deed of Sale was presented by the complainant to the Sub-Registrar and the same could not be registered till this date and is kept pending on account of order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the Co-Operative Tribunal.

According to them besides, besides the sale deed of the complainant there are nine more sale deeds which have been kept pending for registration due to the order of the Co-Operative Tribunal.

According to them as the said order has not been vacated and is still under enforcement, the Sale Deeds in Sambhari Residency could not be registered.

It is the contention of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs 26,500 as the fees for getting the Sale Deed registered. A receipt has been issued to him stating therein that the document shall be returned to him within three months. The said endorsement in the receipt is in terms of sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Registration Act 1998 which states that after registration is complete the documents will be returned to the person who presented the same for registration. 

The redressal forum remarked that the complainant had presented the Sale Deed for registration and accordingly he has paid the prescribed fees. They further observed that the defence taken by the opposite parties that there is a stay restraining the opposite parties from registering the Sale Deed is absolutely fallacious.

They pointed out that under the Registration Act the Sub-Registrar or the Registrar appointed under the Indian Registration Act have to discharge statutory functions without fear or favour.  

“In the present case, the opposite parties have committed a wrongful act by not registering the deed of sale of the complainant without any just cause. Statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections nor act in callous and high handed manner. If a public functionary acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony, then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse.  No law provides protection against it, he who is responsible must suffer it,” reads the order.

The redressal forum held the Opposite Parties in total negligence in discharging of duties and their act cannot be termed as bona fide act.  They further observed that the action of the opposite parties in not registering the sale deed is deficiency in service to the complainant and that there was absolutely no reason for the opposite parties to withhold the registration of the sale deed despite collecting the fees from the complainant. They also found the excuse forwarded by the opposite parties to be absolutely flimsy and that the complainant has suffered due to the negligence of the opposite parties.