The Bombay High Court has held that the Collector cannot insist on a 'No-Objection' from a co-operative housing society as a pre-condition for registration of a Consent Decree, when there is no statutory provision, rule, regulation or notification mandating such requirement. The Court observed that the Respondents' stance amounted to an obstructionist approach in the execution and implementation of a legally binding decree.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Suman Shyam was hearing a writ petition filed seeking directions to the Collector to decide the petitioners' application dated August 22, 2024 without insisting on a 'No-Objection' from Soona Mahal Co-operative Housing Society, so as to enable registration of the Consent Decree dated December 16, 2022.

The dispute concerned a shop and adjoining restaurant premises. Pursuant to an agreement to sell the shop, a suit was filed on account of certain differences and disputes between the parties. During the pendency of the said Suit filed in this Court, a Consent Terms dated 13th December 2022 was executed between the Plaintiffs in the said Suit. When the petitioners sought registration of the said consent decree, they were asked for a 'No-Objection' certificate.

The Court observed that the Revenue Authorities ought to have acted in furtherance of and in deference to the Decree of the Court and should not have insisted on a 'No-Objection' from the Society, which the law did not mandate.

“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 remarked.

The Court noted that the respondents were not able to demonstrate any statutory provision, rule/regulation/notification and/or otherwise that would mandate a 'No-Objection' by the Society as a precursor to the registration of the said Consent Decree. Hence, the approach taken by the Collector was held to be “an obstructionist approach in the execution/implementation of a legally binding decree,” which the Court could not countenance.

The Court also rejected the objection under Section 23 of the Registration Act, observing that the chronology of events showed that the timelines prescribed under the provision had been complied with.

The Court accordingly allowed the petition and directed the Collector to decide the Petitioners' application dated August 22, 2024 without insisting on a 'No-Objection' from the Society.

Case Title: Sanjay Narang v. Joint Sub-Registrar [Writ Petition No. 5225 of 2024]

Click Here To Read/Download Order