1 2026:CGHC:15643 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 762 of 2019 1 – K.P. Verma S/o Late Shri D.P. Verma Aged About 60 Years Deputy Registrar, Gharghoda, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Commercial Tax (Registration) Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Registration And Superitendence Of Stamps Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/04/2026 : 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has questioned the KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.08 18:48:03 +0530 2 legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 18.5.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, by which the State has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Inspector General, Registration imposing penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner herein was duly appointed as Sub-Registrar under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act, 1908’). On 21.2.1994, while discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar, he allowed registration of two sale deeds, one by Ramswaroop Gupta in favour of MP Electricity Board transferring Khasra No.38/17 situated at Ambikapur, and second by Harbhajan Singh in favour of MP Electricity Board transferring Khasra No.38/26, at their residence in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908. Thereafter, he was charge sheeted by the Inspector General, Registration and Superintendent Stamp on the following two charges:- “ vkjksi dzekad 1 %& Jh ds-ih- oEkkZ tc mi iath;d dk;kZy; vafcdkiqj esa mi iath;d ds in ij inLFk Fks rc muds }kjk Jh jkeLo:i xqIrk fuoklh vafcdkiqj rFkk Jh gjHktu flag NkcM+k fuoklh vafcdkiqj }kjk fu"ikfnr xzke fo’kuiqj ftyk&ljxqtk dh 'kkldh; iV~Vs dh Hkwfe [kljk ua -38 @ 26 ,oa 38 @ 7 ds fodz;i= dzekad 3509 ,oa 3510 fnukad 21-02-1994 dks cxSj dysDVj ljxqtk dh vuqefr ds iath;u fd;k x;kA bl izdkj muds }kjk e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 165¿7À¿,À ,oa ¿10À dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA bl izdkj muds }kjk vius inh; drZO;ksa dk laiknu iw.kZ fu"Bk ls u dj ykijokgh cjrh xbZA 3 vkjksi dzaekd 2%& Jh ds-ih-oEkkZ mi iath;d }kjk mijksDr nLrkostksa dk iath;d i{kdkjksa ds fuokl ij tkdj iath;d dh lqfo/kk iznku dh xbZ tcfd iath;u ds fnukad dks nksuksa fodzsrk iath;u dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksus esa iw.kZ :i ls l{ke FksA bl izdkj muds }kjk vius inh; drZO;ksa ds laiknu djus esa ykijokgh cjrh xbZ gSA muds d`R; e/;izns’k flfoy lsok ¿vkpj.kÀ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3¿1À ¿iiÀ ds varxZr dnkpj.k gSA” 3. After the departmental proceeding and after recording evidence of the parties, the Inspector General, Registration came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct, for which penalty of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner, against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the State Government and the State vide impugned order dated 18.5.2018 (Annexure-P/1) has dismissed the appeal, which led to filing of the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that there is no material available on record to show that the land bearing Khasra No.38/17 transferred by Ramswaroop Gupta in favour of MP Electricity Board and the land bearing Khasra No.38/26 transferred by Harbhajan Singh in favour of MP Electricity Board were leased out to them by the Government and, therefore, it could not be registered in favour of the State Electricity Board without permission of the Collector, as required under Section 165 (7-b) read with Section 10 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for 4 short ‘the Code’). Furthermore, registration of the sale deeds at the residence of Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh is in accordance with the proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel would support the impugned order and submit that admittedly, the lands bearing Khasra Nos.38/26 and 38/17 were leased out to Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh respectively and, therefore, permission of the Collector was necessary in view of the provisions under Section 165 (7-b) of the Code. Furthermore, the two sellers were hale and hearty at the relevant point of time and, therefore, proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908 could not have been invoked by the Sub-Registrar/petitioner. As such, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1908 which states as under:- “34. Enquiry before registration by registering officer.- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) The registering officer shall thereupon- (a) enquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed; 5 (b) satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document; and (c) in the case of any person appearing, as a representative, assign or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear.” A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that enquiry to be made by the registering officer is confined to (i) on the factum of execution of the document, (ii) the identity of the person who claims to have executed the document and (iii) the right of the person who appears as a representative, assignee or agent of the executant. 8. If the registering officer is satisfied about the factum of execution and the identity of the person executing the document, he becomes obliged to register the document by virtue of the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Act of 1908 which states as under:- “35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution respectively.- (1) (a) if all the persons executing the document appear personally before the registering officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the person they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or (b) if in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or agent admits the execution, or (c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document as directed in sections 58 to 61 inclusive.” 6 9. The obligation of the registering officer to register a document presented to him for the purpose, after reaching a subjective satisfaction about the identity of the person and the factum of execution, is made explicitly clear in the last portion of Section 35(1), by the use of the words “the Registering Officer shall register the document” as directed to Section 58 to 61 of the Act. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Gopi Vs. Sub- Registrar and Others1 has held that the registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant and he has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title, and held in para-15 as under:- “15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.” 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 740 7 11. Similarly, Section 165 (7-b) & 10 of the Code state as under:- “(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a person who holds land from the State Government or a person who holds land in Bhoomiswami rights under sub-section (3) of section 158 or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes Bhoomiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of a revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing. (10) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registrations Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), no officer empowered to register documents thereunder shall admit to registration any document which purports to contravene the provisions of this section.” 12. A careful perusal of Section 165 (7-b) clearly shows that the land granted to a person by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes Bhoomiswami of such land, shall not be transferred without the permission of a revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Sub-section (10) of Section 165 provides that any officer empowered to register documents under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 shall not admit to registration any document which purports to contravene the provisions of Section 165. The purpose of this sub-section is to put a check on the transfers made in contravention of the provisions of this section (S.165). The prohibition on registration contained in sub-section (10) is on the same footing as one in the 8 Registration Act. If an instrument is registered in contravention of the provisions of this sub-section, the registration is invalid. Such registration is ineffective and should be ignored. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Punau Vs. Ajitram & Others2 has held that a transfer made in contravention of Section 165 (6) is void and not voidable. 13. In the instant case, though Khasra No.38/17 owned by Ramswaroop Gupta was recorded as Bhoomiswami land, but there is no mention in Revenue Records produced before the petitioner/sub-registrar that the land is a Government lessee. Similarly, in the case of Harbhajan Singh, the land bearing Khasra No.38/26 was recorded as Bhoomiswami of the said land holder and the same has not been recorded in revenue record, as held by him, as Government lessee. The two sale deeds (Annexure- P/3 & P/4) filed before this Court clearly recites that there is no violation of Section 165 of the Code and the land has not been recorded as held by two sellers as Government lessee. As such, there was no material before the petitioner/sub-registrar while admitting two sale deeds of Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh that the land is covered by Section 165 (7-b) and by virtue of Section 165 (10) of the Code, registration of the subject sale deeds will not be valid as it would contravene the provisions mentioned in Section 165 (7-b) of the code. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the State that there was material before the 2 1975 JLJ 715 9 registering officer/petitioner to hold that the lands bearing Khasra No.38/17 owned by Ramswaroop Gupta and Khasra No.38/26 owned by Harbhajan Singh were a Government lessee and transfer of land is prohibited by Section 165 (7-b). Furthermore, it is not the case of the State Government that the two sale deeds executed by Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh have been declared void by the competent authority, as the transfer was allegedly made in contravention of Section 165 (7-b) and the transaction was void. 14. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority that the two sale deeds could not have been registered in the light of Section 165 (10) of the Code is erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. 15. As regards charge No.2 that the petitioner/sub-registrar has allowed registration at their residence, it would be appropriate to notice Section 31 of the Act, 1908 which reads as under:- “31. Registration of acceptance for deposit at private residence.- In ordinary cases the registration or deposit of documents under this Act shall be made only at the office of the officer authorised to accept the same for registration or deposit: Provided that such officer may on special cause being shown attend at the residence of any person desiring to present a document for registration or to deposit a will, and accept for registration or deposit such document or will.” 10 16. A careful perusal of the proviso to Section 31 would show that the registering officer may on special cause being shown attend at the residence of the person desiring to present a document for registration instead of the office of the officer authorised in this behalf. 17. However, in the instant case, Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh, both have made an application which has been filed along with Rejoinder in which reasons have been assigned and the registering authority/petitioner has passed an order on that application allowing them to register the subject documents in their residence. Therefore, the decision of the Registering Officer/ petitioner allowing them to register the documents in their residence by assigning sufficient cause cannot be impeached, as the decision for visiting the residence of Ramswaroop Gupta and Harbhajan Singh is the subjective satisfaction of the authority, and the proviso to Section 31 of the Act, 1908 is enabling provision, which takes away the rigour of Section 28 of the Act, 1908. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the charge- sheeting authority has failed to prove/establish the charge Nos.1 & 2 against the petitioner/sub-registrar. 18. Accordingly, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which was affirmed by the appellate authority dated 31.10.2000 and 18.5.2018 i.e. (Annexure-P/1 & P/2 respectively) are hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioner/sub-registrar will be entitled for all the consequential benefits, if any. 11 19. For the foregoing, the Writ Petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve