Kerala High Court
Sajith Basha vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 368 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SAJITH BASHA
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, RESIDING AT HALEEMA MANSIL,
THOTTAPPURA, AKATHETHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN
- 678008
BY ADVS.
P.JINISH PAUL
SNEHA V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
REGISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM., PIN
- 695001
2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CIVILSTATION,
PALAKKAD., PIN - 678001
3 THE SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, PARALI, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT., PIN - 678612
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MANNUR P.O., PALAKKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678642
BY GP - DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 368 of 2024 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) No. 368 of 2024
============================
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5
and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to register Ext.P3
rectification deed for accepting the minimum fee applicable for
registration of the rectification deed.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is the owner in possession
of a landed property having an extent of 0.0362 hectares in Re.Sy.
No.75/11 and 0.0144 hectares in the Sy.No. 75/17 and 0.0983
hectares in Re.Sy. No.75/14 of Mannur Village in Palakkad Taluk
obtained as per Ext.P1 deed. When the petitioner attempted to deal
with certain extent of property, he came to know that in the
certificate issued by the 4th respondent dated 19.07.2023 there are
certain mistakes in the survey numbers, extent of the property and
in the thandaper number with respect to the property of the
petitioner. Thereupon petitioner presented Ext.P2 rectification deed.
Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer stating that
there are certain defects regarding the extent of property and
thandaper number. Petitioner would further submit that by the
alteration now sought for as per the rectification deed, extent of the
property has been reduced from 0.1225 hectares to 0.1489
hectares. The 3rd respondent returned the rectification deed for
adjudication of stamp value and passed Ext.P5 order. It is aggrieved
by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Petitioner submits that the rectification deed was
prepared on the basis of Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village
Officer that there are mistakes in survey number, extent of the
property and thandaper number with respect to the property of the
petitioner. Petitioner would further contend that by the execution of
the rectification deed, the extent of the property has been reduced
and further that the fair value of the wrongly mentioned survey
numbers and original survey numbers are one and the same, and
there is no occasion for any loss to the Government in view of
execution of registration of Ext.P4 rectification deed. Petitioner relies
on the judgment of this Court in Vannathi Valappil Mahmood v.
State of Kerala and Others [2019 (2) KHC 736] wherein
paragraphs 6 and 8 reads as follows:-
"6. It has been held by this Court in a series of cases as
in P.A.Jihas v. The District Registrar & Another, 2012 (3)
KHC 146 : 2012 (3) KLT 194 that for correction of mistake in
the sale deed even if it is with regard to flat number, the
amount payable is the one applicable for rectification of deed
and even if there is an extinguishable right and creation of a
new right, by stating the identity of the flat, that will not alter
the nature of the rectification deed. This Court has also held in
the judgment dated 18.08.2008 in W.P(C)No.21715/2008 that
for the execution and registration of a deed of rectification to
rectify the mistake, the respondent-registration official cannot
demand that the party should pay additional stamp duty for
sale/conveyance on the ground that what is sought to be
rectified is the mistakes in the sale deed.
8. Therefore, though the legislature and the sub-ordinate
legislature has not prescribed the stamp duty rate for a deed
of rectification, the rule making authority under the
Registration Act has conceived of a deed of rectification as one
which does not create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish or
record any right or liability, etc. and in such case, the
registration fee shall be the same as the fee leviable on the
original document, subject to a maximum of Rs.500/-. So the
clear fall out of the provision in clause (1)(s) of Table of
Registration Fee is that where the registration fee is one in
relation to a sale deed and so long as the deed of rectification
is one which does not create, transfer, limit, extend,
extinguish or record any right or liability, then such a deed of
rectification should be registered, subject to levy of
registration fee, which is the same as the one on the original
document, but subject to a maximum of Rs.500/-. So in a case
where rectification deed is one in relation to a sale deed like
Ext.P-1, then the registration fee leviable is the one applicable
for registration of asale deed, but subject to a maximum of
Rs.500/-. It appears that respondents 2 & 3 have read the
scope and ambit of clause(1)(s) of Table of Registration Fee,
after omitting the words "subject to a maximum of Rs.500"
and have also read "registration fee" as "stamp duty". The
stand taken by respondents 2 & 3 in the impugned Exts.P-4, P-
6 & P-7 that the petitioner will have to pay stamp duty for two
conveyances in relation to Ext.P-2 sale deed is certainly illegal
and ultra vires. However, as observed by this Court
hereinabove, the stand of respondents 2 & 3 in Ext.P-6 that
what is involved in Ext.P-2 deed is not merely a component of
sale/conveyance, but also a component of rectification of the
abovesaid mistaken previous entries is correct. So certainly
they are entitled to charge an additional fee of Rs.500/- in
relation to the registration of Ext.P-2 deed. In that view of the
matter, it is ordered that the impugned proceedings have no
legs to stand and accordingly, Exts.P-4, P-6 & P-7 will stand set
aside. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already paid
the applicable stamp duty and registration fee in respect of
the sale transaction covered by Ext.P-2. However, it is made
clear that respondents 2 & 3 could insist that the petitioner
should pay an additional registration fee of Rs.500/-, in view of
the abovesaid aspects, over and above, the stamp duty and
the registration fee already paid by him for Ext.P-2 sale deed.
The petitioner may approach the 2nd respondent-Sub
Registrar and may offer remittance of the said additional
registration fee amount of Rs.500/- and the 2nd respondent
may take steps to ensure that the said additional registration
fee amount of Rs.500/- is duly remitted by the petitioner."
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent
wherein it is admitted that the rectification deed is executed with
intention to rectify the mistakes regarding the old survey number
and new survey number, thandaper number and the extent that has
crept in in the document registered as Document No. 4159/2012. It
is also admitted that the same has been done as per Ext.P4
certificate issued by the Village Officer.
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
6. Admittedly even going by the counter affidavit filed by
the 2nd respondent, the execution deed was necessitated on the
basis of Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer and it was to
rectify the mistake regarding the old survey number, new survey
number, thandaper extent that has crept in in the earlier document
registered as Ext.P1. It is to be seen that the extent has been
considerably reduced as per the rectification deed. It is also to be
seen that there is no creation of any new right by execution of the
rectification deed as going by the judgment in Vannathi Valappil
Mahmood's case cited supra. Therefore, I am of the view that the
stand taken by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P5 cannot be accepted.
Accordingly Ext.P5 is set aside with a consequential direction to the
3rd respondent to register Ext.P3 rectification deed and accept the
minimum fee applicable for registration of the rectification deed. The
same shall be done within a period of 10 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 368/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4159/1/2012
OF PARALI SRO DATED 22-11-2012
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRIOR TITLE DEED NO.
2504/1/2009 OF SRO PARALI DATED 06-06-2009
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT RECTIFICATION DEED
DATED 18.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
19.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 09.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 25.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 02.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 25.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
25.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
