In a recent and important decision, the Bombay High Court has taken a strong stand against improper use of power by government officers. The Court imposed a personal penalty on a District Deputy Registrar (DDR) for passing an illegal deemed conveyance order. This judgment is very relevant for housing societies and people dealing with property and conveyance issues.

The case involved a dispute over deemed conveyance of a property where multiple societies existed. One society had applied for deemed conveyance, and the authority passed an order in 2019 granting a certain portion of land. This should have been the end of the matter. However, the same authority later passed another order in 2020 in the same case, granting a much larger area of land.

What made the situation serious was that this second order was passed without starting any fresh legal process. There was no proper notice to the affected parties, and no new proceedings were conducted. In fact, the second order looked very similar to the first one, almost like it was copied and slightly modified to change the final result.

The affected society challenged this before the High Court. After examining the records, the Court clearly held that once a case is decided, the authority cannot reopen it and change the decision in the same proceedings. If any change is required, it must be done by following proper legal procedure, including issuing notice and starting fresh proceedings.

The Court also made serious observations about the conduct of the officer. It noted that passing two final orders in the same matter shows a lack of care and proper application of mind. The Court found that this was not just a simple mistake, but a case of careless and improper exercise of statutory power. It used the word “recklessness” to describe the officer’s conduct.

At the same time, the Court explained an important legal principle. Not every wrong order means that the officer should be punished. Officers can make genuine mistakes while deciding cases. However, when an officer acts beyond legal limits or ignores basic procedure, it becomes a matter of conduct, and not just a legal error.

In this case, the petitioner had also asked for departmental action against the officer. But the Court refused to order an inquiry because of a technical reason. As per the rules, action against a retired officer must be taken within a fixed time period, and that time had already expired. Therefore, even though the Court found fault, it could not direct formal disciplinary proceedings.

However, the Court did not let the matter end without consequences. To ensure accountability, it directed the officer to personally pay ₹50,000 to the petitioner. This step is important because it shows that even if formal action is not possible, the Court can still hold officers responsible for their actions.

This judgment sends a clear message. Government authorities must exercise their powers carefully and within the limits of law. They cannot change decisions again and again without following proper procedure. At the same time, people affected by such decisions have the right to challenge them in Court.

For housing societies, this decision is very useful. It confirms that deemed conveyance orders cannot be changed arbitrarily. It also shows that courts are willing to step in when authorities act unfairly or beyond their powers.

In simple words, the judgment reminds everyone of a basic principle: power must be used responsibly. If it is not, the law will step in to correct it.