Allowed

B.Barackath v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC19 Dec 2022WP/31746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a communication demanding additional stamp duty and registration fees for an enhanced building value in a rectification deed. It ordered the registering authority to release the sale deed and rectification deed after ensuring payment on the correct net valuation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 was set aside, and the 3rd Respondent was directed to release both the original sale deed and the rectification deed within two weeks.

B.Barackath Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.31746 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.31191 & 31194 of 2022

B.Barackath

... Petitioner

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road Chennai – 600 028.

¶12

2.The District Registrar, Central Chennai, 268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶13

3.The Sub Registrar – Triplicane, 268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶14

4.M/s.Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. By its Director,

¶15

1^st Floor, Centennial Square,

¶16

6A, Dr. Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to demand any additional stamp duty or

¶19

1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶21

registration fee more and above already paid stamp duty of 7% and registration fee of 4% for registration of the sale deed dated 22^nd August 2022 registered as Document No.1082 of 2022 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Triplicane.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Thanka Sivan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.R.P.Muruganraja Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified

¶26

Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to demand any additional stamp duty or registration fee more and above already paid stamp duty of 7% and registration fee of 4% for registration of the sale deed dated 22^nd August 2022 registered as Document No.1082 of 2022 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Triplicane.

¶27

The petitioner has presented a sale deed for registration where the

¶28

value of the site was made as Rs.65,00,000/- and the value of the building was made as Rs.10,00,000/-, this according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was wrongly mentioned insofar as the value of the site is concerned as that should be only Rs.35,00,000/- whereas the value of the

¶29

2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶31

building should Rs.40,00,000/-. Therefore, subsequently a rectification deed has been presented where in Annexure 1-A the value of the site and building as Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- resubmitted, by thus the value of the building has been enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- whereas the site value has been reduced from Rs.65,00,000/- to Rs.35,00,000/-. However the fact remains that, the total valuation combinedly both site as well as building is Rs.75,00,000/- alone that has not been changed.

¶32

When this rectification deed was presented, the only rectification

¶33

sought for changing the value of the site as well as the building and since the same has been registered now both documents have been made pending and not been released to the petitioner by the registering authority viz., the 3^rd respondent stating the reason that, insofar as the building is concerned, the original value was Rs.10,00,000/- now it has been enhanced to Rs.40,00,000/-, therefore for the remaining Rs.30,00,000/-, additional stamp duty to the extent of 7% and the registration charges of 4% have to be paid that is the order impugned passed by the 3^rd respondent dated 14.11.2022 which is under challenge.

¶34

3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶36

Heard Mr.S.Thanga Sivan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, insofar as the value of the site is concerned, mistakenly it has been quoted as Rs.65,00,000/- instead of Rs.35,00,000/-. At the same time, insofar as the building, that was also mistakenly quoted as Rs.10,00,000/- instead of Rs.40,00,000/- based on this Annexure 1-A the original sale deed was registered, subsequently after noticing this defect, in order to rectify the defect, the rectification deed also has been presented for registration with Annexure 1-A where the value of the site has been valued as Rs.35,00,000/- instead of Rs.65,00,000/- and the building has been valued as Rs.40,00,000/- instead of 10,00,000/-.

¶37

This is merely a typographical error and any how this has to be rectified only by way of rectification deed that has also been presented for registration and both the deeds though have been rectified and registered, it has not been released by citing the reason that insofar as the remaining Rs.30,00,000/- that is the enhanced building value, additional stamp duty with registration fee have to be paid by the petitioner. This kind of demand now made through the impugned communication is totally unjustifiable because the total value has not been changed. Moreover, this mistake or

¶38

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶40

error committed in the deed along with Annexure 1-A, only in order to rectify the same the rectification deed has been presented which was accepted and registered. Having accepted and registered the rectification deed and once the registration of the rectification deed is given effect to, ultimately the figure made in Annexure 1-A as well as the assessment made in this regard with regard to the value of the site as well as the building would be Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- respectively. Therefore the total valuation is Rs.75,00,000/- for which entire stamp duty as well as the registration charge since has already been paid, there can be no further impediment for the 3^rd respondent to release the documents. Therefore the present reason cited in the impugned communication is untenable, he contended.

¶41

Heard Mr.R.P.Muruganraja, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 who would rely upon the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, where, inter alia he pointed out that, insofar as the undervaluation of the building i.e. instead of Rs.40,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- such a valuation now has been made properly by making the rectification deed and if the said rectification deed is now registered, in

¶42

5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶44

order to release the rectification document as well as the original sale deed, the remaining additional stamp duty as well as registration charges for the enhanced value of the building from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.40,00,000/- since has to be paid by the petitioner, which has not been paid by the petitioner, the document in question cannot be released, that is the stand taken by the 3^rd respondent, the learned Government Advocate contended.

¶45

I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel

¶46

for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶47

As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only a mistake committed by the petitioner at the time of presenting the original sale deed. However, by making the rectification deed for the value of the site as well as the building instead of Rs.65,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively, it was mentioned correctly Rs.35,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- respectively. That is the reason why the very rectification deed has been prepared and submitted for registration which having been accepted and registered by the respondents i.e. the 3^rd respondent where the value of the site has been mentioned as Rs.35,00,000/- and the value of the

¶48

6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶50

building as Rs.40,00,000/-.

¶51

When that being so, while taking up the enhanced value of the building as Rs.40,00,000/-, the 3^rd respondent conveniently omitted to taking

¶52

up the reduced value of the site as Rs.35,00,000/- which is an error occurred in the original sale deed as well as the Annexure 1-A form which were sought to be, in fact, rectified through the rectification deed.

¶53

When that being so, now the present reason cited by the 3^rd respondent for refusing to release the documents both original sale deed as well as the rectification deed, after having rectified the same, and kept it pending, is unjustifiable.

¶54

In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

¶55

That the impugned communication dated 14.11.2022 is set aside. As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to release both the documents viz., original sale deed as well as the rectification deed after ensuring that the

¶56

7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶58

petitioner has paid the stamp duty as well as registration charges for the valuation i.e. Rs.35,00,000/- for the site and Rs.40,00,000/- for building, if that amount since has already been paid as claimed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court feels that there shall be no further impediment for releasing the said documents. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the 3^rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶59

With these directions, this Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.

¶60

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶61

19.12.2022

¶62

Index : Yes/No

¶63

Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶64

Sgl

¶65

8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

¶67

¶68

1.The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road Chennai – 600 028.

¶69

2.The District Registrar, Central Chennai, 268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶70

3.The Sub Registrar – Triplicane, 268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶71

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

Sgl

W.P.No.31746 of 2022

19.12.2022

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

B.Barackath v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Barackath v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Nallasamy Vs The District Registrar

A.Mohan, Vs Govt. of Tamil Nadu

S.Chandrasekaran, Vs The Sub-Registrar

C.Ragupathy Vs The District Registrar

P.Sankaran Vs Shri Negarunnisa

Krishnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu