Madras High Court
Thanigaivel Murugan vs The Sub Registrar on 12 August, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 09.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :12.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.16883of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12777 of 2025
Thanigaivel Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District. ...Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records
relating to the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal Number.
RFL/Theni/10/2025 dated 12.06.2025 and to quash the same as illegal and
consequently, to direct the respondent to register and release the sale certificate
presented by the petitioner within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondent : Mr.S.Kameshwaran
Government Advocate
*****
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm )
W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned refusal check slip in Refusal Number. RFL/Theni/10/2025 dated 12.06.2025 and consequently, to direct the respondent to register and release the sale certificate presented by the petitioner within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
2.1 The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the City Union Bank Ltd., Theni (herein after referred to as 'Bank') had extended loan against the property by getting memorandum of deposit of title deeds for the property situated in S.No.213 (part) of Allinagaram Revenue Village, Theni Sub Registration, Periyakulam Registration District, Theni District. The persons who borrowed the loan was not able to repay the loan, the bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of The Security and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (herein after referred to as SARFAESI Act). The property was brought for sale through public auction through paper publication dated 23.12.2024, the petitioner had participated in the said auction sale, the petitioner was declared as highest bidder for Rs. 61,00,200/- and the same was confirmed. The petitioner had remitted the said amount on various dates from 22.04.2025 to 25.04.2025. On the date of final payment was made by the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025 petitioner, the bank had issued the sale confirmation letter on 25.04.2025.
2.2. The petitioner had presented the sale certificate dated 06.06.2025 for registration and the respondent had issued the impugned refusal check slip dated 12.06.2025 wherein it is stated that the present guideline value of the subject mentioned property is Rs.3,82,80,000/- and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp fees and registration fees as per the guideline value of Rs. 3,82,80,000/-. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent without any application of mind, since the guideline value cannot be pressed into service in the cases for sale in public auction. The Bank had conducted a public auction in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and as such the same will fall within the ambit of Article 18 of the Stamp Act. Hence the impugned refusal check slip cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on written instructions submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land and building through public auction conducted by the Bank. The public auction sale certificate issued by Civil Courts, Revenue Authorities and Authorities controlled by Revenue and District Collectors alone would come under section 18. Since the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025 public auction sale certificate is issued by the Bank, the same would not come within the purview of Section 18. Further the petitioner is liable to pay the stamp duty and registration fees for the guideline value of the property, but the petitioner had paid only for Rs.1000/-. The petitioner had stated that he is liable to pay for the value of Rs.61,00,200/- only as stated in the document, but the value of the property is Rs.3,82,80,000/- and the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty and registration fees for the same. Hence for these reasons the document was refused to be registered.
4. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court has given its anxious consideration. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the sale certificate issued by the Authorized Officer would be a sale certificate issued by a Revenue Officer and the same is not compulsorily registered under section 17(2)
(xii) of the Registration Act. It is seen that the said issue is no longer res integra and the same is settled in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP represented by its Managing Partner V. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to the Government reported in MANU/TN/7573/2022 : 2022(5)CTC454 wherein it is held as under:
“25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025 law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by him in evidence of such sale, would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)
(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by him. The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R. Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank.
26. The next question that would arise is to the amount of stamp duty and registration charges payable, if such certificate is presented for registration. Article 18 of the Stamp Act, provides for Stamp Duty payable on a certificate of sale granted by a Civil or Revenue Court or Collector or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis other Revenue Officer. Clause (c) of Article 18 makes the duty payable for a conveyance would apply to a sale certificate also. Under Article 23 of the Stamp Act, the Stamp Duty payable on a sale is 5% as per G.O.Ms.No.46- CT and All Department dated 27.03.2012. As already pointed out since the document would not be a conveyance there is no question of payment of any surcharge either under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act 1920 or under the Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfer of Property (In Municipal Areas) Act (32 of 2009).” 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
5. The above case is followed by another Learned Single Judge in N.C.Suresh Kumar and another V. Inspector General of Registration reported in MANU/TN/5863/2023 : 2023 (5) MLJ 176. The said proposition is confirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 23.07.2024 in W.A.No.215 of 2024 in the case of Vijayalakshmi Marketing V. the State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in MANU/TN/3790/2024. In fact the Division Bench had followed the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.N.Devadass vs. Chief Revenue Control Office-cum-Inspector and others reported in (2009)7 SCC 438.
6. Another Learned Single Judge vide order dated 07.02.2025 in W.P. (MD)No.30030 of 2024 has held as under:
“5. The plea of the respondent is that the valuation of the building is less than what has been assessed, it can rightfully be done in case it is a private treaty or sale by one private party in favour of other. The sale certificate in question is not one born out of a private treaty. It is pursuant to a public auction conducted by Indian Overseas Bank invoking the provision of SARFAESI Act. Prior to the property was sold under SARFAESI Act, the bank would have scrupulously followed SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.
6.In terms of Rule 8(5) r/w 9 of the SARFAESI Rules, the Authorised Officer is called upon to obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and only thereafter, he is entitled to get the property for sale.6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025 Therefore, there is no question of re-looking at the valuation that has already been fixed by the competent authority exercising the power conferred on him under parliamentary legislation.
7. Apart from this, a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayalakshmi Marketing vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2024)4 MLJ 754 has held that Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked in matters relating to public auction. The Division Bench categorically held that where a sale is held by public auction carried out through the process which is transparent, Section 47A of the Act is inapplicable. The Division Bench has followed the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.N.Devadass vs. Chief Revenue Control Office-cum-Inspector and others reported in (2009)7 SCC 438.
8. As the law has already been declared, I am not in a position to sustain the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 02.12.2024, is set aside.”
7. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sale certificate issued by the Authorized Officer would be a sale certificate issued by a Revenue Officer and the same is not compulsorily registered under section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. Consequently, the registration of sale certificate would come within the purview of section 18, wherein the petitioner is liable to pay the value shown in the document alone and 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm ) W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025 not the guideline value.
8. The respondents vehemently submitted that it would create loss to the government. But when the Act itself states that the sale by Civil Courts, Revenue Authorities and District Collectors are not liable for guideline value then one more sale by Authorized Officer under Sarfaesi is added. Unless this provision is amended the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.
9. For the reasons stated supra the impugned check slip is liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. The document presented by the petitioner shall be registered within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order in the light of the above observations. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Tmg
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm )
W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
To:
The Sub Registrar,
Theni,
Theni District.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm )
W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
ORDER MADE IN
W.P(MD)No.16883 of 2025
DATED : 12.08.2025
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/08/2025 12:25:53 pm )