In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court, under Justice Manish Pitale, granted anticipatory bail to two former sub-Registrars from Junnar, Pune, in a case involving the alleged illegal sale of forest land. The case, titled Dinkar Shankar Deshmukh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., hinges on the role of Registering Officers under the Registration Act, 1908, particularly Section 34, and whether these officers bear any responsibility for verifying the legality of transactions involving forest land.
The Case Background
The First Information Report (FIR), filed by a Range Forest Officer, accuses the applicants of registering prohibited forest land transactions. It is alleged that these transactions are in violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which restricts the sale and transfer of certain forest lands. The FIR implies that by registering these transactions, the applicants, in their capacity as sub-Registrars, facilitated an illegal sale and thus bear criminal responsibility.
The sub-Registrars defended themselves by citing Section 34 of the Registration Act, 1908, which delineates the duties of a Registering Officer. They argued that their role does not extend to verifying the legality of the transaction or confirming that the transferor holds legal ownership. The applicants referred to precedents from the Bombay High Court in Govind Ramling Solpure & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar to support their position. They claimed that an executive instruction from the Range Forest Officer does not impose criminal liability on them.
Court Observations
The Court noted that Section 34 does not require Registering Officers to verify whether the transferor has legal ownership or if specific transactions are legally permissible under other statutes. It emphasized that broadening the scope of inquiry for Registering Officers beyond what is stipulated in Sections 34 and 35 would contravene the Registration Act.
The Court also considered the letter dated 21 September 2007 from the Range Forest Officer, which instructed the Sub-Registrar’s office in Junnar to refrain from registering forest land transactions. The Court stated that this letter, at most, could be deemed an executive instruction. Such instructions do not supersede statutory obligations under the Registration Act, and they cannot form the basis for criminal liability under this Act.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the arguments, the Court concluded that the applicants made a strong prima facie case for bail. The judgment states that they cannot be held criminally liable for performing their duties within the statutory scope of the Registration Act. It further noted that there were no allegations of extraneous considerations or bribery linked to the applicants’ actions. The Court acknowledged that the applicants were willing to cooperate with the investigation and thus approved their applications for anticipatory bail.
Implications of the Judgment
This case underscores the limitations of a Registering Officer’s duties under the Registration Act, 1908. By granting anticipatory bail, the Court has clarified that Registering Officers cannot be held liable for verifying the legality of transactions beyond what is prescribed by Sections 34 and 35. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future cases where the scope of a Registering Officer’s duty might come under scrutiny, especially in instances involving restricted or protected lands.