[Cites 30, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of Registration vs M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Cotex Private ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 06.04.2026
DELIVERED ON : 15.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140 & 201 of 2026 and 3144 of 2025
and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4133, 1429, 2163, 1785 of 2026
and 18932 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.459 of 2026
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mullima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Vadamadurai Sub Registrar Office,
Dindigul Main Road,
Vadamadurai, Dindigul 624 802.
3. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Panagal Salai,
Near Anna Bus Stand,
Madurai 625 020. ... Appellants
Vs.
M/s.Riddhi Siddhi Cotex Private Limited,
Rep by its Director,
Mr. Gopal Trilokchand Agarwal,
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
No.T-27, STPI, Chikalthana MIDC,
CIDCO, Aurangabad - 431 003. ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as against
the order passed by this Court dated 25.08.2025 made in W.P.(MD).No.
783 of 2025.
For Appellants : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Addl. Advocate Genearl assisted by
Mr.F.Deepak,
Spl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Lakshmi Narayanan
W.A.(MD)No.140 of 2026
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
120 Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Palani Joint II Sub Registrar Office
Palani, Dindigul District ... Appellants
Vs.
1. M/s.Tri Infra Studio Pvt. Limited,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.R.Sachithanatham,
S/o. Ravikumar,
Having its Registered Office at
No. 11/34, 5th Cross Street,
RV Nagar, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai – 600 102.
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
2. The Authorized Officer,
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited
Having its Branch Office At
Office No 560-562 1G, 1st Floor
Century Plaza, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1064 of 2025 dated
23.09.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.F.Deepak,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.B.Vinoth Kumar for R1
W.A.(MD)No.201 of 2026
1. The District Registrar,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Batlagundu Sub Registrar Office,
Batlagundu - 624 701,
Dindigul District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. M/s.Velavan Bunk,
Rep by its Managing Partner,
Mr.S.Subramani, S/o.A.R.Seenivasan,
2080/1A3, 2A1, Dhevadhanapatti,
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
Periyakulam, Theni,
Tamil Nadu 625 602.
2. Rajasekaran ... Respondents
(R2 is Impleaded vide Court order dated 26.11.2025
in W.M.P.(MD)No.25931 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)No.25616/2025
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.25616 of 2025 dated
26.11.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.F.Deepak,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.Suresh
W.A.(MD)No.3144 of 2025
1. The District Registrar,
O/o.The District Registrar,
Othakadai, Madurai North.
2. The Sub Registrar,
O/o.The Sub Registrar,
Vilankudi, Vilankudi Bit II,
Madurai District. ... Appellants
Vs.
Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth,
SBV Campus, Pillaiyarkuppam,
Pondicherry - 607 402.
Rep. by Project Coordinator,
Mr.N.Prabbakaran. ... Respondent
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as against
the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.29434 of 2025 dated
16.10.2025.
For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Raman,
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.F.Deepak,
Addl. Govt. Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Since the issue involved in all the Writ Appeals is one and the
same, we are inclined to dispose of the same by a common judgment.
2. The present writ appeals have been filed by the appellants
challenging the orders of the learned Single Judges, whereby the orders
of the Registering Authority referring the sale certificate under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act on the ground of undervaluation of the
properties were quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
3. The Writ Petitioners purchased the properties through public
auctions conducted by the authorities. When the sale certificates were
presented for registration, registration was refused, and the matter was
referred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on the
ground of undervaluation of the properties. Challenging the said orders,
the Writ Petitioners filed the above Writ Petitions.
4. The learned Single Judges, after considering various
judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, allowed
the Writ Petitions and quashed the orders of the Registering Authorities.
Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judges, the present Writ
Appeals have been filed.
5. The learned Advocate General and the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that Schedule I,
Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, applies only to a certificate of
sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a
Civil or Revenue Court or other Revenue Officer. Only in such cases
stamp duty is payable as on a conveyance, calculated on the market value
equal to the amount of the purchase money. They further contended that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
sale certificates issued under proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the
IBC, or pursuant to any public auction conducted by a Court-appointed
Receiver, would not fall within the ambit of Schedule I, Article 18 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore, registration of the sale document
is mandatory. Registering Authorities have the power to refer the matter
to Collector under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
6. It is also submitted that Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, was amended by Act 7 of 2019 with effect from 09.01.2020.
According to them, instrument includes every document, by which any
right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited,
extended, extinguished or recorded. Therefore, the said definition makes
it clear that any sale certificate creating any right or liability falls within
the ambit of an instrument. Hence, he would submit that under Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Registering authority, while
registering any instrument has reason to believe that market value of the
property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after
registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for
determination of the market value of such property. Therefore, the said
definition makes it clear that any sale certificate creating any right or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
liability falls within the ambit of an instrument. Hence, it is their
contention that, in all public auctions, the value has been purposely
reduced. Therefore, in such cases, the Registering Authority has every
right to refer the instrument to determine the true market value of the
property.
7. Further, it is their contention that a Full Bench of this Court
in R.Thiagarajan Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in
2019 (4) CTC 839 has held that the sale certificate issued by the
Authorised Officer of the Bank cannot be equated with the sale
certificate issued by a Civil or Revenue Court. The judgment of the Full
Bench was ignored by all the other Benches. Further in the case of
Official Liquidator Vs. M.Jeyakumar reported in (2010) 2 CTC 113, the
learned Single Judge also clearly held that a sale made by the Official
Liquidator is not a transfer by operation of law. They further submitted
that a similar issue is already pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
which has directed that all such matters be clubbed for final hearing.
8. The learned Senior counsel and the learned counsel
appearing for the Writ Petitioners would submit that as per Section 47-A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Registering Authority has no power to
refer the sale certificate. Once the sale certificate is issued by operation
of law, the proper stamp duty payable under Article 18 of Schedule I is as
a conveyance. Therefore, their contention is that the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in R.Thiagarajan’s case cannot be applied. They
further submit that the Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector
and Others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438 was not brought to the notice
of the Full Bench of this Court. It is also their contention that, in another
judgment in Registrar of Assurances and Others v. ASL Vyapar Private
Ltd. and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8281 of 2022), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has clearly held that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899,
cannot be applied to a public auction carried out through Court processes
or a Court-appointed receiver.
9. We have heard both sides and perused the materials placed
on record.
10. The main issue arising in all the Writ Appeals is whether,
once a sale certificate issued by operation of law under the SARFAESI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
Act, the IBC, or a public auction conducted by the Court Monitoring Cell
is presented for registration, the Registering Authority has the power to
refer such documents under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
In all the Writ Petitions, which are the subject matter of these Writ
Appeals, the sale certificates were issued either under SARFAESI
proceedings by the Authorised Officer, under the IBC, or through the
liquidation process.
11. It is also relevant to note that the Transfer of Property Act
regulates transfers made by the act of parties and not to the transfer by
the operation of law. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.
P.Kesavan and another reported in (2004) 9 SCC 77, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 12 and 20 held as follows:
“12. As would appear from the preamble of the
Transfer of Property Act, the same applies only to transfer by
act of parties. A transfer by operation of law is not validated
or invalidated by anything contained in the Act. A transfer
which takes place by operation of law, therefore, need not
meet the requirement of the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act or the Indian Registration Act.
...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
20. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act
have no application in a case where a transfer of property
takes place by operation of law.”
12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Inspector
General of Registration Vs. K.K.Thirumurugan reported in 2015 1 CTC
526 held that the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899, cannot be applied to an auction sale under the SARFAESI Act,
2002. However, the another Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Inspector General of Registration Vs. Kanagalakshmi Ganagaru
reported in (2017) 2 CWC 780 has held that a sale certificate under the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 was amenable to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act,
1899.
13. In view of the conflicting judgments, the matter was
referred to the Full Bench in the case of R.Thiagarajan's case. The Full
Bench consisting of three Judges Bench concurring with the decision of
the Kanagalakshmi Ganagaru's case and held that a sale conducted by
the Authorised Officer under the SARFAESI Act is neither a sale by a
Civil or Revenue Court nor by a Revenue Officer. Therefore, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
certificate of sale requires mandatory registration and payment of stamp
duty under Article 18(c) and 23 of the Indian Stamp Act without which it
is a stillborn child/a void document.
14. It is further to be noted that in another Division Bench of
this Court in the case of K.Chidambara Manickam Vs. Shakeena
reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 488, held that sale certificate under the
SARFAESI Act does not require registration. The decision in
Chidambara Manickam’s case was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 20.08.2019 in Shakeena’s case, whereas the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court was delivered on 05.08.2019. Therefore, the
Department cannot rely upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court.
15. It is further to be noted that the Full Bench judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss's case has clearly held that
when the property was purchased in the open market, the question of
non-disclosure of correct price in order to evade stamp duty does not
arise and held that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR
and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by the Assets Sales
Committee and therefore, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
has no application. It is relevant to note that the Full Bench judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was never cited before this Court while
deciding the applicability of Section 47-A to sales made by operation of
law. It is further to be noted that, in Registrar of Assurances and Others
v. ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. and Others reported in (2024) 17 SCC 572,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the provisions of
Section 47-A of the Act do not apply to a public auction carried out
through Court processes or a Court-appointed receiver, as such a process
is the most transparent means of determining the correct market value of
the property.
16. It is further to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shanti Devi L.Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer reported in
(1990) 3 SCC 605, has considered the provisions of Section 89(2) and
(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. In paragraph 6, it is held as follows:
"In our opinion, there is no need to read the term
'revenue officer' in any restricted sense and that it is wide and
comprehensive enough to include the TRO who effects a
compulsory sale for the recovery of an income tax demand."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that no restrictive
meaning can be imposed towards “Revenue Officer”. The provisions
under the SARFAESI Act, DRT, and IBC must be interpreted
accordingly. The sale is ordinarily conducted through due process of law.
Though the nomenclature may differ whether it is an Authorised Officer
or a Liquidator, the fact remains that all such process result in a
compulsory sale by operation of law. Hence, we are of the view that the
term ‘Revenue Officer’ shall be liberally construed to include an
Authorised Officer under SARFAESI proceedings, as well as officers
acting under liquidation or IBC proceedings. Therefore, the real test, to
determine whether a particular officer is a Revenue Officer, is whether
such officer exercises the power of compulsory sale under a statute.
When an Authorised Officer under SARFAESI proceedings exercises
statutory duties for the recovery of public money by way of compulsory
sale, such an officer would certainly fall within the ambit of the
expression “Revenue Officer.”
18. It is also to be noted that Section 54 and the amendment
brought under Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 relates to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
the transfer by inter vivos. “Transfer of property” under Section 5 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is defined as follows:
“5. “Transfer of property” defined.- In the
following sections “transfer of property” means an act by
which a living person conveys property, in present or in future,
to one or more other living persons, or to himself, [or to
himself] and one or more other living persons; and “to
transfer property” is to perform such act.
[In this section “living person” includes a
company or association or body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall affect
any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of
property to or by companies, associations or bodies of
individuals.]”
19. It is relevant to note that that in Esjaypee Impex Private
Limited v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara
Bank, reported in (2021) 11 SCC 537, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph 15 and 16 as held as follows:
“15. The learned counsel for the Bank agreed
that the sale certificate has to be further validated and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
assured that the needful will be done within two weeks.
However, a submission was made that the sale certificate
was then to be handed over to the registering authority for
registration and payment of stamp duty.
16.We are of the view 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 purchaser with a
copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in
Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act.”
20. After the above judgment when an auction purchaser in the
Esjaypee Implex (P) Ltd has approached the Sub-Registrar,
Purasaiwakkam, the Sub-Registrar had refused to file the sale certificate
in Book I citing the order of the Full Bench and a circular dated
04.09.2019 issued by the Inspector General of Registration on the basis
of the Full Bench judgment. Once again, judgment of the Full Bench of
this Court in Dr.R.Thiagarajan's case was brought to the notice of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Inspector General of
Registration and the Sub-Registrar, Purasaiwakkam were impleaded as
parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein on 29.10.2021, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:
“The concerned impleaded authorities are before
us now.
The direction has already been passed on
05.01.2021 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. We may note that the effect of filing of
the copies under the said Section 89 has the same effect as
registration and obviates the requirement of any further
action. The compliance of our direction already made on
05.01.2021 will not be impeded by any High Court judgment.
Our order to be duly complied by the registering authority.”
21. Despite the Full Bench judgment brought to the notice of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has passed an order and
in fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated its directions passed on
05.01.2021. Such direction is passed even after taking note of the Full
Bench Judgment. Therefore, we are of the view that the Full Bench of
this Court is impliedly overruled. Be that as it may, the Full Bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devadoss' case has not even
brought to the notice of this Court while deciding R.Thiagarajan's case.
The Full Bench judgment of this Court in R.Thiagarajan's case has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
yield the dictum already laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Devadoss's case. On similar lines, this Court has also decided various
aspects, including the nature of stamp duty, the applicability of Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to a sale certificate issued under
SARFAESI proceedings, and whether surcharge is payable, in the case of
M/s.Sri Balaji Fibre Vs. The Inspector General of Registration.
22. It is further to be noted that when a sale certificate is issued
by operation of law under the IBC, SARFAESI, or by the Income Tax
Department while discharging statutory duties, such officer must be held
to be a ‘Revenue Officer’ for the purpose of reckoning stamp duty.
23. Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act makes it clear that stamp
duty on a sale certificate shall be payable as on a conveyance, for a
market value equal to the amount of the purchase money only. The word
”Conveyance” is defined under Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act, which
reads as follows:
“(10) Conveyance.- “Conveyance“ includes a
conveyance on sale every instrument by which property, whether
moveable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is
not otherwise specifically provided for by schedule I”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
24. The above definition makes it clear that only when the
property is transferred inter vivos, the same will come within the ambit of
conveyance. A sale certificate, however, is not a transfer inter vivos, but a
consequence of a statutory process by operation of law. Such being the
position, when a sale certificate is issued by operation of law in the
exercise of statutory functions, it cannot be construed as a conveyance so
as to attract the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899.
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows:
“47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc., under-
valued how to be dealt with.-(1) If the registering officer
appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central
Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of
conveyance, exchange or gift has reason to believe that the
market value of the property which is the subject-matter of
conveyance, exchange or gift has not been truly set forth in
the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument,
refer the same to the Collector for determination of the
market value of such property and the proper duty payable
thereon.”
25. The above provision makes it clear that the Registering
Officer, while registering any instrument of conveyance (such as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
exchange, gift, release of benami right, or settlement), has reason to
believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter
of the conveyance has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may,
after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for
determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty
payable thereon.
26. The above provision makes it clear that only when there is
a transfer by inter vivos does the question of referring the document for
determination of the market value arise. Though considerable reliance
has been placed by the learned Advocate General on Section 2(14) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to contend that ‘instrument’ includes every
document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created,
transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or recorded.
27. It is relevant to note that Section 17(2)(xii) of the
Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear that a certificate of sale granted to
the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or
Revenue Officer does not require compulsory registration. Since Section
47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applies only to instruments of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
conveyance, and a sale certificate issued by operation of law is not a
conveyance, as it does not involve a transfer inter vivos, we are of the
view that a sale certificate issued by operation of law cannot be equated
with a conveyance for the purposes of invoking Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Accordingly, a sale certificate issued by
operation of law cannot be treated as a conveyance.
28. It is also relevant to refer the judgment in Vijayalakshmi
Marketing, Partnership Firm Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2024) 4 MLJ 754. Paragraph Nos.5 to 10 of the said judgment reads as
follows:
“5.The issue relating to payment of stamp duty on
sale certificate is no longer res-integra. One of us [Hon-ble
Mr.Justice R.Subramanian] has in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP,
Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by
its Secretary to Government, reported in 2022 (5) CTC 454,
after referring all the precedents on the issue of stamping of
sale certificate had held that the stamp duty payable on the sale
certificate is only 5% and the registration charges payable is
1% and had observed as follows:-
“25. From the above discussion, it could be
seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
the law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer,
who conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act, would be a Revenue Officer and the certificate issued
by him in evidence of such sale, would be a document
which is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)
(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient, if the
document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4)
to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by him. The
decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of
Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The
Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi
Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v.
Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The
Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain,
(Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee
Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank.
26. The next question that would arise is to the
amount of stamp duty and registration charges payable, if
such certificate is presented for registration. Article 18 of
the Stamp Act, provides for Stamp Duty payable on a
certificate of sale granted by a Civil or Revenue Court or
Collector or other Revenue Officer. Clause (c) of Article
18 makes the duty payable for a conveyance would apply
to a Sale Certificate also. Under Article 23 of the Stamp
Act, the Stamp Duty payable on a sale is 5% as per
G.O.Ms.No.46, CT and All Department dated 27.03.2012.
As already pointed out since the document would not be a
conveyance, there is no question of payment of any
Surcharge either under Section 116-A of the Tamil Nadu
District Municipality Act, 1920 or under the Tamil Nadu
Duty on Transfer of Property (in Municipal Areas) Act (32
of 2009).”
6. The said judgment was also followed by another
learned Single Judge of this Court in N.C.Suresh Kumar and
another Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
(5) MLJ 176. Therefore, the demand made by the Sub-Registrar
that the petitioner must pay enhanced stamp duty is not
justified.
7. As regards the reference made under Section 47~A
of the Stamp Act we are constrained to hold that such a
reference is not authorized by Section 47-A. The Hon-ble
Supreme Court in Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL
VYAPAR Private Ltd. & another made in Civil Appeal No.8281
of 2022 dated 10.11.2022 after referring to the earlier judgment
in V.N.Devadass Vs. Chief Revenue Control Office -cum-
Inspector and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438 held that a
reference under Section 47~A cannot be resorted, where a sale
is by public auction by the officers appointed by the Court. In
doing so the Hon-ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“22. On the conspectus of the matter, we have
not the slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the
provision of Section 47A of the Act cannot be said to have
any application to a public auction carried out through
court process/receiver as that is the most transparent
manner of obtaining the correct market value of the
property.
23. It is no doubt true that in a court auction,
the price obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has
to take care of a scenario where the auction may be
challenged which could result in passage of time in
obtaining perfection of title, with also the possibility of it
being overturned. But then that is a price obtainable as a
result of the process by which the property has to be
disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the very objective of
the introduction of the Section whether under the West
Bengal Amendment Act or in any other State, i.e., that in
case of under valuation of property, an aspect not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
uncommon in our country, where consideration may be
passing through two modes ? one the declared price and
the other undeclared component, the State should not be
deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect
the correct price in the document as something more has
been paid through a different method. The objective is to
take care of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not
affected and the price actually obtainable in a free market
should be capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is,
in fact, a reflection on the manner in which the transfer of
an immovable property takes place as the price obtainable
in a transparent manner would be different. An auction of
a property is possibly one of the most transparent methods
by which the property can be sold. Thus, to say that even
in a court monitored auction, the Registering Authority
would have a say on what is the market price, would
amount to the Registering Authority sitting in appeal over
the decision of the Court permitting sale at a particular
price.”
8. The Court upheld the view expressed in
V.N.Devadass Vs. Chief Revenue Control Office (supra) and
answered the reference as follows:
“31. We are, thus, of the view that this
reference is required to be answered by opining that in
case of a public auction monitored by the court, the
discretion would not be available to the Registering
Authority under Section 47A of the Act.”
9. In view of the above categoric pronouncement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court we conclude that the impugned
action of the Sub~Registrar viz., the 3rd respondent are
unwarranted and against law. The learned Single Judge
however dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself
and concluded that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
the issues in the 47-A proceedings. Unfortunately the attention
of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to the recent
pronouncement of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in Registrar of
Assurances and another Vs. ASL VYAPAR Private Ltd. &
another (supra). Hence, we are forced to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge.
10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside.
The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The
47~A proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the
appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per
the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep.
by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its
Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the
petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date
of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum
of Rs.74,50,000/~ towards additional duty in the proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be
refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of
payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.”
29. Considering all the above judgments and discussions, we
are of the view that once a sale certificate is issued by operation of law
and the sale is effected through a public auction, the question of referring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
the sale certificate under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not
arise at all.
30. In view of the above, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.]
15.04.2026
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
vsm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140, 201/2026 & 3144/2025
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
vsm
Judgment in
W.A.(MD)Nos.459, 140 & 201 of 2026
and 3144 of 2025
15.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
