Madras High Court
The Sub Registrar vs M/S.Balachandra Builders on 15 June, 2023
W.A.No.917 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.917 of 2023
1.The Sub Registrar,
Neelangarai, Chennai-600 041.
2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps),
Office of the District Collector,
5th Floor, M Singaravelar Building,
No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
3.The Chief Revenue Control Officer,
(Inspector General of Registration)
Santhome, Chennai-600 004.
4.The Special Tahsildar (Stamps),
Chennai-600 001. .. Appellants
Vs
M/s.Balachandra Builders,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956
No.A-5, First Floor, No.41, First Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020
rep. by its Managing Director T.Srinivasan .. Respondent
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2021 made in
W.P.No.2233 of 2019.
For the Appellants : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
For the Respondent : Mr.S.Thangavel
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Heard Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, learned Additional Advocate
General along with Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government
Pleader for the appellants and Mr.S.Thangavel, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. The appellants assail the order passed by the learned
Single Judge, thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the present
respondent and directing the first appellant herein to release the
rectification deed dated 19.8.2009 registered vide Document
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
No.1589 of 2010 forthwith.
3. Under the rectification deed dated 19.8.2009, the
respondent wanted to rectify the area. The area was reduced in the
rectification deed than the original instrument, but the boundaries
remain the same.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants
strenuously contended that the learned Single Judge while
delivering the judgment did not consider sub-section (14) of Section
2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in its correct perspective. The said
provision states that every document, by which any right or liability
is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended,
extinguished or recorded, is included under the definition
“instrument”. Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 could
not be attracted in the present case. The survey was conducted
and, therefore, the document i.e. the rectification deed was
impounded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
5. We have also heard learned counsel for the respondent.
6. Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, amended by
Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987, reads thus:
“47-B. Stamp duty chargeable for instrument of
rectification.- Where a instrument purports to
rectify any error in the description of property as set
out in any previous instrument falling within the
purview of section 47-A, then, the amount of duty
chargeable in such instrument of rectification shall
be the amount chargeable on it under Schedule I
less the amount of duty, if any, already paid in
respect of such previous instrument.”
7. It is a fact that boundaries and the consideration amount
did not change. The area was reduced from 92.5 cents to 88.5
cents. It appears that a mistake had cropped up in conveying the
property to the extent of 92.5 cents, which ought to be 88.5 cents.
The stamp duty, it appears, is already paid for an area admeasuring
92.5 cents while registering the original instrument of sale.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
8. Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as re-
produced supra, admits of no ambiguity. The language of Section
47-B is absolutely clear and does not admit of any other
interpretation than the fact that the amount of duty chargeable for
instrument of rectification shall be the amount chargeable on it
under Schedule I less the amount of duty, if any, already paid in
respect of such previous instrument.
9. It is not disputed that the stamp duty was already paid on
the previous instrument, albeit for more area. In the rectification
deed, the area was reduced, the boundaries remain the same. The
description of the property also remains the same. It cannot be a
matter of debate that the stamp duty on an area of 88.5 cents
would be less than the stamp duty leviable on 92.5 cents. The
respondent has already paid higher stamp duty while registering the
initial document.
10. In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error while passing the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
11. The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. The appellants
shall comply the order of the learned Single Judge within a period of
fifteen days from today. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.No.9177 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
15.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
bbr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.917 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
bbr
W.A.No.917 of 2023
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
