Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Sub-Registrars in Alleged Forest Land Sale Case, Holds 2007 Forest Officer’s Directive Cannot Override Statutory Provisions: No Criminal Liability for Performing Official Duty

Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to sub-registrars involved in the sale of forest land. The court held that no criminal liability could be imposed on the sub-registrars, as they acted within the scope of their official duties under the Registration Act, 1908. The court observed that there was no evidence suggesting any extraneous considerations or financial benefit to the sub-registrars.

Facts:
The applicants, sub-registrars at the time, were arraigned as accused in connection with the registration of transactions involving forest land, which was allegedly prohibited by law. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by a Range Forest Officer, alleging that forest land was sold to purchasers, and these transactions were registered during the applicants’ tenure. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

Issues:

• Whether the sub-registrars could be held criminally liable for registering transactions involving forest land.
• Whether the sub-registrars had an obligation under the Registration Act to refuse registration of such documents based on the nature of the land.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The applicants argued that their duty as sub-registrars was limited to ensuring compliance with Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908, which do not require them to verify the legality of the transactions or the ownership of the land. They cited judgments from previous cases, arguing that they were merely performing their statutory duties and could not be held liable for registering the transactions.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents relied on a 2007 communication from the Range Forest Officer instructing the sub-registrars to avoid registering transactions involving forest land. They argued that the sub-registrars violated statutory provisions, including the Indian Forest Act, by allowing the registration of these transactions, thus making them criminally liable.

Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act, 1908, which outline the sub-registrar’s duties, particularly in verifying the execution of documents and the identity of the parties involved. The court concluded that the sub-registrars are not required to verify the legality of the transaction or the title of the transferor, and their role is limited to procedural compliance under the Registration Act.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referenced prior judgments, including Ashwini Ashok Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra and Govind Ramling Solpure v. State of Maharashtra, which held that sub-registrars are not obligated to refuse registration based on the nature of the land involved, and that rules expanding their duties beyond the statutory framework are invalid.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the 2007 communication from the Range Forest Officer was merely an executive instruction and could not override statutory provisions under the Registration Act. As such, the sub-registrars were not required to refuse the registration of documents involving forest land. The court also noted that there was no evidence of extraneous consideration or financial gain for the sub-registrars.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, holding that the sub-registrars were acting within their official capacity under the Registration Act and could not be held criminally liable for the transactions. The applicants were granted bail on the condition of cooperation with the investigation and not tampering with evidence.

Implications:
This decision reaffirms the limited scope of a sub-registrar’s duties under the Registration Act, 1908, and clarifies that executive instructions cannot override statutory provisions. It also underscores the protection given to public officials acting within their statutory roles from criminal liability unless there is evidence of extraneous factors or illegal considerations.

Also Read – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Quashes Detention Order Against Petitioner, Citing Non-Application of Mind by Detaining Authority and Lack of Fresh Material Justifying Detention