Madras High Court
Nellore Sarojanamma vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 8 April, 2024
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
WP.No.9531 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.9531 of 2024
Nellore Sarojanamma .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004
2.The Sub Registrar
Neelankarai
Chennai – 600 041 .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the 2nd respondent proceedings made in Refusal Check Slip
No.RFL/Neelankarai/1/2024 dated 01.02.2024, quash the same and
consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive and register the settlement
deed executed on 01.02.2024 in respect of S.No.74/1B (part) (Old Paimash
No.152A) of Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram
District to an extent of 33.3 cents (14,520 square feet).
For Petitioner : Mr.Abdul Mubeen
for Mr.K.Mohan
For Respondent : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
WP.No.9531 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the refusal slip issued by the second respondent claiming stamp duty.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property was originally purchased in auction and sale certificate was obtained on 06.09.2012 from the Authorised Officer, Vijaya Bank, Mylapore branch, Chennai – 600 004. Based on the said sale certificate, when the settlement deed was sought to be registered, the same was refused to be registered on the ground that stamp duty for the previous document/sale certificate is not paid.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the sale certificate is not filed in Book-I as mandated under Section 89(1) of the Registration Act, the document cannot be registered. However, fairly submitted that the stamp duty cannot be insisted for filing sale certificate as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, the fact remains that the sale certificate has to be filed.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 WP.No.9531 of 2024 file the sale certificate in Book I immediately, in that case, the respondents cannot insist for the stamp duty. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Inspector General of Registration & anr. Vs. G.Madhurambal & Anr has held as follows:
“...
We may refer to the judgments by the Madras High Court in the Board of Revenue No.2 of 1875 (In Re: Case Referred) dated 19.10.1875 opining that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty, by the Allahabad High Court in Adit Ram v. Masarat-unNissa1 opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in clause (b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not compulsorily registrable and this Court’s view in Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank2 opining that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2)(xii) read with Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the Authorised Officer of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated Sale Certificate to the Auction Purchase with a copy forwarded to the Registering Authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act and order of this Court in M.A. No.19262/2021 in SLP(C) No.29752/2019 dated 29.10.2021 opining that once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and obviates the requirement of any further action.
It is time that the authorities stop filing unnecessary special leave petitions only with the objective of attaining some kind of a final dismissal from this Court every time. Costs this time has been spared but will not be spared the next time. The needful be done in terms of the impugned judgment(s) within 15 days from today.”
5. Similarly, the First Bench of this Court in the case of The Sub https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 WP.No.9531 of 2024 Registrar Vs. Tripower Enterpries (Private) Limited and another vide judgment dated 01.09.2022 has held as follows:
23.In common parlance, if anyone is holding the responsibility of civil nature, other than any officer in Military or Naval service, then he would be reckoned to be a “Civil Officer”. In the light of the aforesaid, the Authorised Officer of the bank would fall within the definition of “Civil Officer”, especially when he is an officer of the nationalized bank. In that view of the matter, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act would be applicable to the facts of the case and thereby the sale certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is not one of the documents that requires compulsory registration.
24.In the light of the aforesaid, we have to give interpretation to Sections 89(2) and 89(4) of the Registration Act, because if the sale certificate issued by the Authorised Officer, being a “Civil Officer” is not required to be registered compulsorily, then there would be no reason for insisting on registration and payment of stamp duty. Rather, the sale certificate should be filed in Book No.1.
6. Such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that for filing sale certificate in Book I, no stamp duty is to be insisted.
7. Accordingly, the impugned refusal checkslip dated 01.02.2024 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to receive and register the settlement deed executed on 01.02.2024 in respect of S.No.74/1B (part) (Old Paimash No.152A) of Neelankarai Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District to an extent of 33.3 cents (14,520 square feet).
8. With the above, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. It is made https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 WP.No.9531 of 2024 clear that for filing sale certificate, stamp duty need not be insisted. If in future any document is executed, the same shall be dealt as per law.
08.04.2024
dhk
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004
2.The Sub Registrar
Neelankarai
Chennai – 600 041
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
WP.No.9531 of 2024
dhk
W.P.No.9531 of 2024
05.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6