Disposed

Lavanya Saravanan v. The Inspector General of Registration

Madras HC20 Apr 2026WP/14522/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking refund of excess stamp duty and registration fees allegedly paid under protest on registration of a sale certificate, based on the petitioner's pending representation. The court directed the third respondent to pass final orders on merits within 8 weeks after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to pass final orders on refund representation within 8 weeks after personal hearing; no costs.

Lavanya Saravanan Vs The Inspector General of Registration — Property and Title | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 14522 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE WP No. 14522 of 2026

Lavanya Saravanan

..Petitioner(s)

The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road

¶10

The District collector Kanchipuram District.

¶11

The District Registrar of Registration Kanchipuram District.

¶12

The Sub Registrar Kanchipuram Joint-II Kanchipuram District.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2.3.2026 and further direct the respondents to refund the stamp duty and registration fee paid for the registration of sale certificate in Document No.4356/2022 on the file of the sub Registrar, Kanchipuram Joint-II within a stipulated time period fixed by this Honble court

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Singaravelan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muruganantham For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Harish Govt.Advocate

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 14522 of 2026

¶19

Order

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking for re-fund of the stamp duty and registration fee, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2026, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

2.According to the petitioner, she had registered a sale certificate with the respondents through Document No.4356/2022. According to her, she had paid excess stamp duty for the said sale certificate. According to the petitioner, instead of 5% towards stamp duty and 1% towards registration fee, she had paid 7% towards stamp duty and 4% towards registration fees for getting the sale certificate registered. According to the petitioner, the excess payments were made only under protest. Therefore, the petitioner had given a representation on 02.03.2026 to the respondents seeking for re-fund of the excess stamp duty and registration fees paid by them. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶22

__________ Page2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 14522 of 2026

¶25

3.Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶26

4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s representation.

¶27

5.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner’s representation, as stated supra, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also permitting her to place reliance on authorities in support of her contention.

¶28

6.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2026 seeking for refund of the excess stamp duty and registration fees said to have been paid by the petitioner for registration of the sale certificate bearing Document No.4356/2022, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and also permitting her to place reliance upon the authorities rendered by the Constitutional Courts in support of her contention, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶29

20-04-2026

¶30

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶31

VGA

¶32

__________ Page3 of 4

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 14522 of 2026

¶35

ABDUL QUDDHOSE J.

¶36

VGA

¶37

¶38

The Inspector General of Registration Santhome High Road

¶39

The District collector Kanchipuram District.

¶40

The District Registrar of Registration Kanchipuram District.

¶41

The Sub Registrar Kanchipuram Joint-II Kanchipuram District.

¶42

WP No. 14522 of 2026

¶43

20-04-2026

¶44

__________ Page4 of 4

¶45

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

Lavanya Saravanan v. The Inspector General of Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavanya Saravanan 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.Lakshmanan Vs the Regional Transport Officer

T.Chennammal Vs The District Collector

A.Ravikumar Vs The District Collector

T.Sivaram Vs The District Registrar

M.Jayachitra Vs The Sub Registrar

K.Narend Vs The Inspector General of Registration