Revenue Authorities Cannot Create Roadblocks In Implementing Court Decrees: Bombay High Court Rules Collector Cannot Demand Society NOC To Register Conveyance

"Revenue Authorities viz. the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have acted in furtherance of and in deference to such Decree of this Court and not create any obstacles and/or road blocks in the implementation thereof. 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." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated 17th August 2026, held that the District Collector cannot insist upon a "No-Objection Certificate" from a Co-operative Housing Society as a mandatory pre-condition for registering a consent decree that operates as a deed of conveyance.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna observed that revenue authorities are legally bound to act in deference to court decrees rather than adopting an "obstructionist approach" in their execution and implementation when statutory law imposes no such requirement.

The petitioners had purchased commercial premises in Soona Mahal Co-operative Housing Society at Marine Drive, Mumbai, and subsequently obtained a consent decree on 16th December 2022 from the High Court in a civil suit, which operated as a conveyance of title. After paying over ₹91.58 lakh in stamp duty, the petitioners sought registration of the consent decree, but the Sub-Registrar and the Collector insisted on an NOC from the housing society, which was withheld due to internal disputes. Aggrieved by the revenue authority's refusal to process the transfer without the society's NOC, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Collector possessed any statutory authority to insist upon a No-Objection Certificate from a Co-operative Housing Society as a prerequisite for clearing the registration of a court-certified Consent Decree acting as a deed of conveyance. The court was also called upon to determine whether the presentation of the decree complied with the mandatory timelines under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Revenue Authorities Must Implement Court Decrees Without Creating Obstacles

Writing for the bench, Justice Advait M. Sethna underscored that once a competent civil court passes a consent decree declaring title and possession, and that decree attains finality without being challenged, executive authorities cannot hinder its enforcement. The bench made it clear that public authorities cannot introduce extra-statutory barriers that stall the formal registration of title.

The court noted that the consent terms expressly declared the petitioners to be lawful owners in possession and operated as a conveyance of the suit premises. The bench firmly held that the revenue authorities ought to have facilitated the implementation of the decree by determining the applicable transfer fees rather than imposing conditions alien to the statutory framework.

"The stance of the Respondents to raise such objection in execution of the Consent Decree, would be nothing short of an obstructionist approach in the execution/implementation of a legally binding decree, which we cannot countenance."

No Statutory Provision Empowers Collector To Insist On Society NOC

The bench scrutinized the statutory powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) and rejected the State’s contention that Section 37A mandated prior society consent. The court clarified that Section 37A pertains strictly to restrictions on transactions regarding government and nazul lands and does not grant the Collector sweeping powers to demand an NOC from private co-operative societies for registering a conveyance decree.

The court emphasized that the respondents failed to demonstrate any statutory rule, regulation, or notification empowering the Collector to make a society NOC a condition precedent. The bench reiterated that when an applicant is ready and willing to pay the regular transfer fee and premium in terms of the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 7th July 2017, the Collector cannot arbitrarily withhold clearance.

"Despite elaborate arguments by the learned counsel for the Respondents... they have not been able to demonstrate any statutory provision, rule/regulation/notification and/or otherwise which would mandate the insistence by the Respondent No.2 for issuance of such ‘No-Objection’ by the Society, as a precursor to the registration of the said Consent Decree."

Court Reaffirms Aspi Chinoy Precedent On State's Limited Interference In Flat Transfers

Placing reliance on the binding division bench judgment in Aspi Chinoy v. State of Maharashtra, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Aspi Chinoy, the bench reiterated that the State Government has no authority to demand prior approval or permissions for transfers where the land was leased to builders and subsequently conveyed to flat owners forming a society.

The court pointed out that Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes the registration of a decree operating as a conveyance mandatory. The bench observed that the statutory purpose of registration cannot be defeated by reading unwritten conditions into the law, especially when the legal principles governing such transfers stand firmly settled by the Supreme Court.

Timelines Under Section 23 Registration Act Duly Satisfied

The bench also threw out the State's technical objection under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the presentation of a decree for registration within four months. The court observed that the timeline began to run only after the consent decree was fully adjudicated for stamp duty, drawn up, and officially sealed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the High Court on 12th June 2024.

Because the decree was forwarded for registration on 3rd July 2024, well within the four-month window, the bench held that the State’s plea on limitation "cuts no ice" and demonstrated an unjustifiable effort to stall a valid registration.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a mandamus directing the Collector to decide the petitioners' application on merits and notify the applicable transfer fee and premium without insisting on a No-Objection Certificate from the society, thereby facilitating the prompt registration of the consent decree.

Date of Decision: 17th August 2026