Madras High Court
Sithick Jalaludeen vs The Sub Registrar on 7 February, 2025
W.P(MD)No.30030 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition(MD)No.30030 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.25283 & 25284 of 2024
Sithick Jalaludeen ..Petitioner
Vs
The Sub Registrar,
O/o Sub Registrar,
Kalayarkoil,
Sivagangai District. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent dated
02.12.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
return the document in Document No.5233 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024 on the file
of respondent within the time stipulated by this Court and direct the respondent
to refund the excess stamp duty and registration fee collected from the
petitioner immediately.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Addl. Advocate General assisted by
Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Govt. Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.30030 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is a purchaser of the properties in S.Nos.121/1, 121/2,
121/3, 121/4, 122/1, 122/2, 122/4, 122/5, 122/6, 122/7, 127/2, 127/3, 127/6,
127/7A, 127/7B, 118/2, 118/3, 118/6, 118/7 and 109/3 situated at Kalaiyarkovil
Taluk, Sivagangai District. The property originally belonged to one
Kalaiyarkovil Milk Processing Private Limited. The said Company had taken
loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Karaikudi Branch. They defaulted in payment
of the loan. Hence, the properties were brought to auction pursuant to the bank
invoking SARFAESI proceedings.
2. In the said proceedings, the writ petitioner participated and knocked all
the properties at Rs.2,63,94,390/-. Sale certificate was also issued by the
Authorised Officer of the Indian Overseas Bank on 22.03.2024. The sale
certificate was presented for registration on 25.09.2024 and registered as Doc.
No.5233/2024. In the sale certificate, the value of the building is mentioned as
Rs.1,05,05,590/-.
3.Though the document was registered, it was not returned by the
respondent. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the Executive
Engineer had assessed the building at Rs.3,34,36,067/-. Consequently, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.25,27,354/-. Challenging the
same, the present writ petition.
4. I heard Mr.T.Antory Arulraj for the petitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan,
learned Additional Advocate General appearing for State.
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. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General states that the registered sale
certificate will be furnished within a period of four weeks. The statement is
recorded.
10.I am not dealing with the prayer for return of excess stamp duty
alleged to have been paid. That is a separate cause of action. It is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner to initiate such proceedings as open to him, after the original is
retuned to him. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11. Post the matter after four weeks for reporting compliance.
07.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes
skn
To
The Sub Registrar,
O/o Sub Registrar,
Kalayarkoil,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
skn
Writ Petition(MD)No.30030 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.25283 & 25284 of 2024
07.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
