Madras High Court
Nagaraj Sethupathi vs The Inspector General Of ... on 7 June, 2023
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
1.Nagaraj Sethupathi
2.Surendran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Pattinapakkam,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office,
Madurai District.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Melur West Sub Registrar Office,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
enter the sale certificate dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Secretary cum
Coordinator of Administrative Committee in favour of the petitioner's in Book
1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 without insisting for payment
of any stamp duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Barathan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.C.Satheesh
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a
direction against the third respondent, Sub Registrar, Melur West Sub Registrar
Office at Madurai, to enter the sale certificate dated 16.08.2022, issued by the
Secretary cum Co-ordinator of Administrative Committee in favour of the
petitioners in Book-I under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908 without
insisting payment of any stamp duty.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated
that consequent to an order in W.P.(MD)No.8084 of 2017 before the Principal
Bench of the Madras High Court, the properties of DISC Assets Lead India
Limited, was directed to be identified and to be brought in public auction. The
petitioner had purchased the properties as stated in the sale certificate issued
consequent to such auction by the Secretary cum Co-ordinator of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
Administrative Committee. A letter had been addressed by the said official to
the second respondent enclosing the sale certificate. The territorial
jurisdictional Sub Registrar is the third respondent herein. It had been stated
that an order had been passed in W.P.No.20769 of 2021 dated 17.11.2021 that
the sale certificate should be registered without insisting on stamp duty. The
said order has been confirmed in W.A.Nos.589, 681 and 746 of 2022 batch and
further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C)Nos.16949 of
2022 batch. The petitioner had given a representation seeking registration of
the sale certificate. Pending the writ petition, this Court had directed the
petitioner herein to present the sale certificate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the third respondent had
however refused to register the sale certificate and on the other hand had also
issued a letter to the petitioner herein that consequent to a Government Order
passed on 23.03.2023, the petitioner should pay necessary stamp duty at 11% of
the value of the property.
4. Let me straightaway point out that the said order of the Government
had been passed in March, 2023, whereas the petitioner had presented the sale
certificate much earlier, on 16.08.2022. The issue whether the order would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
retrospective, need not be examined by this Court, since the order of the
Government imposing 11% stamp duty had also been subsequently stayed by
the order of the Court.
5. In the judgment referred aforementioned which had been reported in
(2021) 8 MLJ 603, (Tripower Properties Limited, represented by its Director Vs
Inspector General of Registration and others), a learned Single Judge of this
Court had examined the provisions under Section 89 very elaborately and had
finally stated as follows:
"8.As such when the purchaser goes for the registration of the
original sale certificate issued by the Court Officer, Article 18 of the
Indian Stamp Act would be attracted and stamp duty is to be paid as
per Article 23 of the Registration Act treating it as conveyance
namely auction purchase value of the property. But when a copy of
the sale certificate presented before the second respondent not for the
purpose of registration but only for purpose of filing it by the second
respondent in his office as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the
Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the second respondent cannot
refuse to file a copy of the sale certificate by demanding payment of
stamp duty and registration fees to file the same in Book No.1, as
contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
9.In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to
enter the sale certificate dated 22.03.2021 issued by teh third
respondent in Book No.I as contemplated under Section 89 of the
Registration Act, 1908 without insisting any stamp duty within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. "
6. This reasoning of the learned Single Judge had been affirmed both by
the Division Bench of this Court and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The
Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court alone is now extracted by me. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C)No.16949/2022 (Inspector General of
Registration and another Vs G.Madhurambal and another, had held as follows:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has made a valiant
endeavor to persuade us to interfere with the impugned
judgment(s) but not successfully. It is logically so as this issue
has been repeatedly settled and if one may say, a consistent view
followed for the last 150 years. 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-un-Nissa
opining that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind
mentined in clause(b) of Section 17 of Act III of 1877 and is not
compulsorily registrable and this Court's view in Esjaypee Impex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
Pvt. Ltd., v. Asst. General Manager and Authorised Officer,
Canara Bank 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 s registration and obviates
the requirement of any further action.
It is time that the authoritise 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.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of. "
7. In view of the ratio laid down, a direction is issued to the third
respondent to register the sale certificate presented by the petitioner herein
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt its presentation and
without insisting of stamp duty.
8. This Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
07.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate, Pattinapakkam, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Sub Registrar, Thamaraipatti Sub Registrar Office, Madurai District.
3.The Sub Registrar, Melur West Sub Registrar Office, Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
pnn
W.P(MD)No.5792 of 2023
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
