Bombay High Court
Shri. Ganpat Balaram Bhagat vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 9 January, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:1061-DB
15_WP_4032_12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4032 OF 2012
Ganpat Balaram Bhagat ... Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department and others ... Respondents
Mr. Ashok T. Gade a/w. Ms. Riya John and Mr. Navin B. Rathod for petitioner.
Smt. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.1-4-State. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 09th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought diverse reliefs, including initiation of criminal proceedings against respondent Nos.5 and 6. But, with the events that took place during the pendency of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions to press for relief only in terms of prayer clause (b).
3. In the present case, the petitioner approached this Court raising a grievance that despite the competent authority i.e. the Joint District Registrar, having issued direction under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), as per order/communication dated 03.07.2010 to the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar (hereinafter referred to as the said order), 1/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc to proceed under Section 82 of the said Act and to submit a compliance report, no steps in that regard were taken.
4. In the context of the said order, attention of this Court was invited to copy of a general power of attorney executed by 27 persons in favour of respondent No.5. It was submitted that although the document on its first page recorded the date as 05.10.1995, the stamp and signature of the notary public at the end of the document recorded the date as 16.12.1996 with entry No.517 of 1996 in the register of the notary public. Thereupon, attention of this Court was invited to the death certificate showing that one of the persons, who had purportedly executed the power of attorney, i.e. Balaram Mahadu Bhagat, had already expired on 01.10.1996, while the power of attorney had been notarized later i.e. on 16.12.1996.
5. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner claimed that the said order passed by the Joint District Registrar, was justified and in the face of the said order, the subordinate authority i.e. Joint Sub- Registrar ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the said Act.
6. Attention of this Court was further invited to an order dated 18.08.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2817 of 2011, wherein a Division Bench of this Court took note of the said order passed by the Joint District Registrar and specifically directed that the exercise contemplated under the same, shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks and that a report shall be submitted in that regard. Such reports were submitted before this Court through Assistant Government Pleader, which are also annexed to the present petition.
2/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 :::15_WP_4032_12.doc
7. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar, on 03.02.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order), surprisingly rendered a finding that there was merely an irregularity in the facts of the present case for which the aggrieved person can approach a competent Civil Court for relief.
8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this petition, which was filed in the year 2012, the petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No.546 of 2014, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for appropriate reliefs. A criminal proceeding was also initiated for offences under Sections 465, 466, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and other offences, which is pending in the form of Criminal Case No.320 of 2009 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane. It is submitted that in view of initiation of the said civil and criminal proceedings, the petitioner is not pressing for relief other than relief in prayer clause (b) of the present petition.
9. It is submitted that since the said order passed by the Joint District Registrar, specifically directing action to be taken by the subordinate authority i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar under Section 82 of the said Act, operates without hindrance, there is no justification for the failure on the part of the said subordinate authority to act in accordance with law.
10. It is submitted that respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot take advantage of a subsequent order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc Deputy Inspector General of Stamps, as it pertains to an irregularity pertaining to Section 34 of the said Act and makes no reference to the aforesaid order passed by the Joint District Registrar. It is submitted that for all these years, the petitioner has been waiting for appropriate steps being taken by the concerned authorities, in accordance with law.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted that the whole theory of the general power of attorney being shown as executed after one of the signatories had died, is not borne out from the material on record. It is submitted that emphasis in the said order passed by the Joint District Registrar, was more on the fact that the said person had expired before the subsequent documents were executed in the year 2004, on the strength of the said general power of attorney. It was submitted that the petitioner had already initiated proceedings under civil and criminal law, which are being contested by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and in that light, the present petition does not deserve any consideration.
12. It was further submitted that the law pertaining to what can be said to be an irrevocable power of attorney, is well-settled and considering the contents of the general power of attorney in the present case, it becomes clear that it was indeed an irrevocable power of attorney, as the entire consideration was paid and there was no question of death of one of the signatories adversely affecting the validity of the said document. In any case, it was submitted that such a dispute being the subject matter of the suit pending before the competent Civil Court, the relief being pursued in this petition has been rendered infructuous. It was submitted that in the light of the 4/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc documents placed on record by the petitioner himself, it is clear that the relief at prayer clause (b) cannot be granted and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. The learned AGP relied upon reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State authorities to submit that there is no substance in the present petition. Reliance was also placed on a circular dated 23.02.2007, which was also relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. It was submitted that the said circular sufficiently provided for the manner in which such disputes concerning power of attorney, could be resolved, indicating that they ought to be raised only before a competent Civil Court. It was submitted that therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed.
14. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of the material on record, it is evident that with passage of time and during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner initiated civil and criminal proceedings in the form of the aforesaid pending civil suit as well as the criminal case. Therefore, only prayer clause (b) is pressed on behalf of the petitioner. The said prayer clause pertains to the statutory action contemplated under Sections 82 and 83 of the said Act. The aforesaid provisions of the said Act read as follows:
"82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment.--Whoever--
(a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or 5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc
(b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or
(c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or
(d) abets anything made punishable by this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
83. Registering officers may commence prosecutions.--
(1) A prosecution for any offence under this Act coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity may be commenced by or with the permission of the Inspector-General, the Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed.
(2) Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the second class."
15. A perusal of the above-quoted provisions indeed shows that if at all a proceeding or prosecution for penalty under Section 82 of the said act, which provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years is to be initiated, it can be done only with the permission of the competent authority i.e. Inspector General, Registrar or sub-registrar of the territories, wherein the offence has been committed.
6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 :::15_WP_4032_12.doc
16. The petitioner triggered the said mechanism provided under the said Act and this led to the aforementioned order of the Joint District Registrar, a perusal of which shows that the aforesaid competent authority specifically directed the subordinate authority i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar to take appropriate action under Section 82 of the said Act and to submit a compliance report. It appears that the subordinate authority did not take necessary action action in the matter, which necessitated filing of Writ Petition No.2817 of 2011, on behalf of the petitioner, seeking appropriate direction against the subordinate authority.
17. We are not impressed by the contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 that since they were not made parties to the said petition, this Court may not go into that aspect of the matter. We find that the Division Bench of this Court specifically referred to the said impugned order and directed compliance, with the report being furnished within 8 weeks. The impugned reports dated 31.12.2011 and 05.01.2012 appear to have been furnished through Assistant Government Pleader. Ultimately, this led to the order being passed by the Joint District Registrar, which made specific reference to the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2817 of 2011.
18. This Court finds it surprising that while passing the impugned order, the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar reached a conclusion that there was merely an irregularity in the facts of the present case, the grievance with regard to which could be raised before the competent Civil Court and that no further steps were required to be taken. The tenor of the impugned order gives an impression to this Court that the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint 7/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc Sub-Registrar not only overreached the superior authority i.e. Joint District Registrar, who had passed the said order dated 03.07.2010, but also made an attempt to overreach the order of the Division Bench of this Court.
19. In the face of the fact that the said order dated 03.07.2010 continued to hold the field, the subordinate authority i.e. Joint Sub- Registrar had no business to go into the question as to whether any proceeding under Section 82 of the said Act, could be initiated or not or whether the grievance could be raised before the competent Civil Court. It is within this narrow compass that the controversy raised by the petitioner needs to be considered.
20. The submission made on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the actual nature of the subject document being an irrevocable power of attorney, cannot be considered in the narrow scope of controversy raised in the present petition. The said aspect would certainly be dealt with by the competent Civil Court, where the suit is pending. This Court refrains from making any comment with regard to the same.
21. We are also of the opinion that merely because a criminal case filed against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for offences of IPC, is pending before the competent Court, the relief in the present case cannot be considered, is a submission that deserves to be rejected.
22. In the present case, we are only concerned with the institution of appropriate proceeding under Section 82 of the said Act, as per the specific mechanism provided under the said statute, requiring appropriate permission under Section 83 of the said Act from the competent authority.
8/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 :::15_WP_4032_12.doc
23. The requirements of Sections 82 and 83 of the said Act having been satisfied in the facts of the present case, there was no reason why the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar could pass the impugned order and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
24. We also find substance in the contention of the petitioner that order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Stamps is of no consequence for the controversy in the present case, as it pertained to irregularity under Section 34 of the said Act and it had nothing to do with the said order dated 03.07.2010 passed by the Joint District Registrar under Section 83 of the said Act. Reliance placed on circular dated 23.02.2007 is also misplaced, as it concerns resolution of disputes that can be considered by the Civil Court. We have already noted that this petition concerns the narrow controversy regarding Sections 82 and 83 of the said Act.
25. It is a travesty that this short controversy has remained pending in this Court from the year 2012 and this is the second writ petition required to be filed by the petitioner. The earlier writ petition, as noted hereinabove, bearing Writ Petition No.2817 of 2011 was disposed of on 18.08.2011 itself, with a specific direction to the subordinate authority i.e. the Joint Sub-Registrar to act in accordance with the said order dated 03.07.2010. Yet, the petitioner has waited for more than 10 years for prayer clause (b) to be considered in the present petition.
26. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 that in the interregnum, 9/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 ::: 15_WP_4032_12.doc the petition itself was dismissed in default and subsequently, it was restored.
27. Be that as it may, we find that such a narrow controversy remained pending for decision for all these years in this Court, which ought not to have happened.
28. In view of the above, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, is quashed and set aside. The reports dated 31.12.2011 and 05.01.2012 submitted by respondent Nos.3 and 4, are also quashed and set aside. As a logical sequitur of prayer clause (b) being granted, the Joint Sub-Registrar is directed to take steps in terms of Section 82 of the said Act expeditiously and in any case, within four weeks from today. It is made clear that all defences available to respondent Nos.5 and 6 in such a proceeding, are kept open.
29. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 prayed for stay of the order passed today.
30. In the light of the reasons recorded in the order hereinabove, we are not inclined to consider the said prayer. Hence, the same is rejected.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Digitally signed PRIYA by PRIYA KAMBLI KAMBLI Date:
2026.01.12 17:53:27 +0530 Priya Kambli 10/10 ::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2026 22:30:39 :::