Mumbai: Bombay High Court has rapped the collector (city) for insisting on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a housing society on Marine Drive as a pre-condition for registering a consent decree that transferred shop premises to sibling restaurateurs Sanjay and Rachna Narang.“The revenue authorities viz joint sub-registrar and collector ought to have acted in furtherance of and deference to such decree of this court and not create any obstacles… However, he (collector) chose to tread on a different path by insisting on ‘no objection’ from the society, which the law did not mandate,” said Justices Suman Shyam and Advait Sethna in Monday’s verdict.The dispute concerned a 186-sq-ft shop, ‘Pushp Milan’, and an adjoining 2,530-sq-ft restaurant premises on the ground floor of Soona Mahal CHSL. Members Khorshed Udwadia and Adi Nazir claimed to own both premises.Udwadia entered into an agreement with Narangs’ company Mars Enterprises and Hospitality Pvt Ltd to sell the shop. Following disputes, a suit filed by Udwadia was settled through consent terms decreed in Dec 2022. In July 2024, sub-registrar said, as the suit premises stood on collector’s land, collector would have to issue a ‘no-objection.’ On Narangs’ application, in Sept 2024, collector asked them to submit CHSL’s ‘no-objection.’ CHSL refused to issue it. The Narangs moved HC.Senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina for the Narangs argued that collector could not insist on an NOC and cited an HC decision which was affirmed by Supreme Court. He said, thereafter, there was a Section 37 A amendment to Maharashtra Land Revenue Code but even in it there is no mandate/requirement for collector to insist on NOC. While the state’s advocate relied on Section 37 A, the judges said it relates to govt land and restrictions on transactions on it.They noted that the respondents had not assailed the consent terms which have attained finality. They had not demonstrated “any statutory provision, rule / regulation/ notification and/or otherwise” which would make collector’s insistence on an NOC a “precursor” to registration of the consent decree. Therefore, their stance “would be nothing short of an obstructionist approach… which we cannot countenance.”The judges directed collector to decide Narangs’ application without insisting on an NOC and subject to payment of applicable premium. They clarified CHSL would not be held liable for absence of an NOC and left its allegation of “serious encroachment on the suit premises” to be determined in appropriate proceedings.
