Bombay High Court Rules Society NOC Not Needed to Register Consent Decree
The Bombay High Court has ruled that revenue authorities cannot demand a housing society's No Objection Certificate (NOC) as a pre-condition to register a court-approved consent decree when no statutory provision mandates such permission. The ruling was delivered in a dispute concerning commercial premises at Soona Mahal Cooperative Housing Society at Marine Drive in Mumbai.
A bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Advait Sethna issued the order on August 17 while allowing a petition filed by Mars Hospitality Group founder Sanjay Narang and his sister Rachna Narang. The dispute involved a 186-square-foot shop and an adjoining restaurant space measuring approximately 2,530 square feet located at the Marine Drive property.
The petitioners had originally entered into an agreement regarding the shop in 2018. Following a dispute that reached the High Court, the matter was settled through consent terms in December 2022. The court subsequently issued a consent decree confirming that the terms would operate as a conveyance in favour of the petitioners, who then paid stamp duty amounting to Rs 91.58 lakh on the decree.
However, when the petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar to register the decree, the official stated that an NOC from the Collector was necessary. The Collector then demanded an NOC from Soona Mahal Cooperative Housing Society. The society declined to issue the clearance, citing issues related to the premises.
The petitioners challenged the condition before the High Court, arguing that the consent decree had achieved finality and lacked any statutory requirement for a society NOC. Opposing the plea, the State relied on restrictions under Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
The bench rejected the State's argument, observing that revenue authorities should act in deference to court decrees rather than creating obstacles to their implementation. The court noted that the respondents failed to point to any statute, rule, or notification requiring a society NOC prior to registration, calling the insistence an obstructionist approach.
Noting that the petitioners were willing to pay the prescribed transfer fee and applicable premium, the bench directed the Collector to decide their August 2024 application without insisting on the society's NOC and facilitate the registration. The court clarified that the society would not be held liable by the Collector for the absence of an NOC, leaving any separate disputes over alleged encroachments open for appropriate proceedings.
