Disposed

V.Jothika v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC9 Jul 2025WP(MD)/16345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice demanding deficit stamp duty issued on an audit objection. The Court held a Sub Registrar cannot collect deficit stamp duty without initiating Section 47A proceedings; such a notice is without jurisdiction and violates natural justice. The notice was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 quashed; District Registrar to consider case afresh and initiate proceedings under law if deficit duty payable. No costs.

V.Jothika Vs The Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED : 09.07.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶5

W.P(MD)No.16345 of 2025 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.12421 of 2025

¶7

V.Jothika ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Sub Registrar Sub Registration Office, Vathalagundu, Dindigul. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notice dated 14.10.2024 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to remove the entry made in the encumbrance register within a time frame stipulated by this Court and other consequential reliefs.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh

¶12

For Respondent :Mr. G.Suriya Ananth Additional Government pleader

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 and consequently to direct the respondent to remove the entry made in the encumbrance register.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶18

that the petitioner had registered a sale deed dated 01.08.2022 in Document No. 3631/2022, and the document was also released. Subsequently, the respondent issued the impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 based on an audit objection.

¶19

3 . The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent

¶20

cannot proceed to recover the deficit stamp duty merely based on an audit objection. In support of this contention, the petitioner relied on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 21079 of 2018 dated 10.09.2024, wherein it was held that the respondent cannot directly demand deficit stamp duty. This Court is also on the same

¶21

_________Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

opinion that based on the audit objection the respondent cannot directly collect the deficit stamp duty. The respondent ought to invoke Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, issue notice, call for objections, then ought to consider the objections and pass order. In the present case notice was issued directly demanding the deficit stamp duty which was pointed out in the audit objection. The respondent cannot directly collect the deficit stamp duty without initiating appropriate proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Further the impugned notice is violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, it is seen that the District Registrar is the appropriate authority to consider the issue. Hence the impugned notice issued by the Sub Registrar is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 14.10.2024 issued by the respondent is hereby quashed.

¶24

Therefore, the District Registrar shall consider the case

¶25

afresh after considering the relevant documents. If he is coming to the conclusion that the deficit stamp duty is payable by the petitioner, he shall initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

¶26

_________Page 3 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

With the above observations, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There

¶29

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶30

closed.

¶31

09.07.2025

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶33

KSA

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

The Sub Registrar Sub Registration Office, Vathalagundu, Dindigul.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶41

KSA

¶42

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No. 16345 of 2025

¶43

DATED :09.07.2025

¶44

_________Page 6 of 6

¶45

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

V.Jothika v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jothika v. The Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappudurai Vs The Sub Registrar

Kalyani Vs The District Collector

M.Lenin Vs The District Collector

Kumar Sr Vs The Inspector of General of Registration

Vallitheivanai Vs The Commissioner

A.Ravi Vs The Tahsildar (East)