The High Court upheld a writ petition challenging an order demanding the return of a stamp duty concession for women home buyers, holding that mortgaging property for a bank loan did not violate the condition against alienation.
The impugned order dated 28.08.2018 calling for the remittance of the women purchaser concession is quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
Mousumi Dey W/o.Tanaji Dey ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar, Puducherry. Office of the District Registrar, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned communication No.1630/RD/SR-Pdy/Audit/2019/1293 dated 28.08.2019 passed by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mugundhan
For Respondents : Mr.J.Kumaran Additional Government Pleader [Pondicherry]
Page No.1 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
28.08.2018 passed by the respondent.
Page No.2 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
Rs.86,99,925/- and as per the RBI norms, she had executed a Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds on the same day of the purchase of the property i.e on 21.02.2018, which has been registered before the office of the District Registrar, Puducherry, vide Document No.3538 of 2018. Suddenly, on 30.09.2019, the petitioner had received a communication from respondent, bearing No.1630/RD/SRPdy/Audit/2019/1293 dated 28.08.2018 stating that she had mortgaged the property to a private bank and she has to remit the women purchaser concession availed by her within 10 days, failing which, the amount would be recovered by attaching the property. Challenging the said communication, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
Page No.3 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
petitioner had purchased the property by availing a loan from the ICICI Bank and also after availing the loan, she purchased the property and registered the property in the name of the petitioner, the respondent also executed the sale deed and granted the concession and subsequently, after one year from the date of registration, the impugned order was passed by the respondent, which is against their own Government Order. Though in the impugned order, they referred about the amendment issued by the Department of Revenue, wherein the amendment was only with regard to the residents of the Puducherry and not other than that, the impugned order is against the notification and the same is liable to be quashed.
Page No.4 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
Bank, which is against the above said Notification. The mortgage also amounts to alienation, since she mortgaged the property and violated the
conditions and therefore, the impugned order passed directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty, which was availed by way of concession at the time of registration of documents.
record.
Page No.5 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
female member and after purchase, the female member should not alienate the property to a male member within 5 years. In this case, there is no such violation. The only violation pointed out by the respondent is that they mortgaged the property to the ICICI bank i.e a private bank which is in violation of relevant Rules. There is no such condition imposed in the Notification and therefore, even in the sale deed itself, there is a recital about the availing of loan from the ICICI bank and there was an agreement between the petitioner and the ICICI bank regarding the financial assistance and also the purchase of the property. Therefore, nothing has been suppressed by the petitioner in the sale deed in this regard and the respondent had also provided the concession. On reading the entire materials on record, it is seen that there is no violation of the conditions imposed in the Notification and further, the respondent has not produced any material to show that subsequent to the purchase of the property, the petitioner had mortgaged the property by way of depositing the title deeds with the ICICI bank, which amounts to alienation and also the ICICI bank falls under the nomenclature of male member and therefore, in the absence of the same, the contention of the respondent is
Page No.6 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
not sustainable and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and the same is set aside.
shall be no order as to costs.
12.12.2023
Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No rka
Page No.7 of 8
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rka
To The Sub-Registrar, Puducherry. Office of the District Registrar, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry.
W.P.No.27936 of 2019
12.12.2023
Page No.8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub-Registrar's direction to remit the women purchaser concession was maintainable when the petitioner obtained a housing loan.
Whether depositing title deeds with a bank for a home loan constitutes alienation of property under the Notification.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mousumi Dey
The Sub-Registrar, Puducherry
P.Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
