Allowed

Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC12 Jul 2011WP/1238/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Rectification Deed sought to correct only a clerical error in an earlier Conveyance Deed regarding land share description and did not extinguish existing rights. Thus, it does not constitute a sale or conveyance under the Stamp Act and is not liable for stamp duty under Entry 47A of Schedule 1A.

What did the court decide?

District Registrar directed to charge stamp duty only as liable for any Rectification Deed not amounting to sale or conveyance and register the same.

Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No. 1238 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition has been filed questioning the final order dated 4.12.2010 issued by the respondent – District Registrar, Hyderabad South. The petitioners 1 and 2 have sold the property, a unit called 2^nd floor of the building admeasuring 1425 Sq ft with undivided share of land of 120 sq yards in favour of the 6^th petitioner herein. That Conveyance Deed was registered as Document No. 2515 of 2004 dated 30.6.2004. There is no dispute that the said Conveyance Deed has been properly stamped and it was registered after collecting the necessary registration fee. However, the petitioners 1 and 2 have realized that the undivided share in the land which is sought to be conveyed to the petitioner No. 6 is not 120 sq yards, but only 50 sq yards, corresponding to the extent of the unit of 1425 sq ft sold to her, and hence the petitioners 1 and 2 have executed a Rectification Deed on 26.3.2010. They presented the said Rectification Deed for the purpose of registration. The Sub Registrar has received the document, but kept it as pending document No. 212 of 2010. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 24.5.2010 holding that the Rectification Deed attracts Stamp Duty under Entry 47A of Schedule 1A of

¶5

the Indian Stamp Act r/w G.O. Ms No. 1129, Revenue (Regn.–I) Department, dated 13.6.2005 and called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,225/-. Inspite of the objections pointed by the petitioners thereto, final orders have been passed by the District Registrar confirming demand for the aforementioned sum.

¶6

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the recitals in the original sale deed executed on 30.6.2004 and registered as Document No. 2515 of 2004 clearly mentioned that the total extent of the built up area sought to be conveyed by the said document in the 2^nd floor of the building as 1425 sq ft. In Annexure 1A to the said document, the undivided share in the land was clearly shown as 50 sq yards. However, at page (3) of the said sale deed, the undivided share of land was erroneously shown as equivalent to 120 sq yards. It is this error of mentioning undivided share in the land as 120 sq yards, which is sought to be rectified as 50 sq yards, for which purpose the Rectification Deed was executed on 26.3.2010 and offered for registration.

¶7

The question that requires to be answered is whether the Rectification Deed is liable to be stamped in terms of Entry 47A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, or this should be treated as rectification of an error in a document which is presented earlier for registration.

¶8

Entry 47A of Schedule 1A of the Act dealt with the instruments or conveyance deeds which answer

¶9

the definition of sale as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Rectification Deed is in fact seeks to extinguish right of the petitioner No. 6 over land of an extent of 70 sq yards and hence the Rectification Deed also answers the definition of a sale deed and to that extent, it requires to be charged in terms of Entry 47A(D) of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act.

¶10

Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that what has been registered while dealing with the Conveyance Deed bearing No. 2515 of 2004, is the data that is furnished in Schedule 1A attached to the said Conveyance Deed. The said Schedule 1A of the Document bearing No. 2515 of 2004 clearly mentioned the undisputed share in the and as only 50 sq yards. Therefore, on the previous occasion, what petitioners 1 and 2 have conveyed to the petitioner No.6 was the undisputed share in the land to the extent of 50 sq yards. The same, upon registering the document, was recorded in the Permanent Records kept or maintained ordinarily by the office of the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, there is no extinguishment of any right which was existing earlier, which is now attempted to be done through the Rectification Deed presented. The present Rectification Deed seeks to correct an error that crept in page (3) of the body of the Conveyance Deed where inadvertently 120 sq yards of undisputed land share was

¶11

mentioned.

¶12

I have perused the instrument bearing No. 2515 of 2004 which was registered on 30.6.2004. In Schedule 1A thereof, the unit size is shown to be 1425 sq ft and accordingly the value of transaction for purposes of stamp duty was worked out. Further, the undisputed land share that was transferred in favour of the petitioner No. 6 by petitioners 1 and 2 is also recorded there as only 50 sq yards. In that view of the matter, the present Rectification Deed is not seeking to restrict in any manner the undivided land share of the 6^th petitioner in the unit that is purchased by her from petitioners 1 and 2 on previous occasion. What is attempted now is only a correction of an error in the body of the Conveyance Deed. Hence, the present Rectification Deed as presented, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not answer the description of sale or conveyance as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act and consequently it cannot be charged to stamp duty in terms of Entry 47A(D) of Schedule 1A of the Act.

¶13

I therefore hold that the final order issued by the District Registrar is not sustainable and he is directed to charge the Rectification Deed such stamp duty which is liable to be charged of any Rectification Deed which does not amount to sale or conveyance. The Sub Registrar is directed to register the same and release it to the petitioner No. 6 herein.

¶14

This writ petition stands disposed of with

¶15

this order. No costs.

¶16

--------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J

¶17

knk 12^th July 2011

Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Tallapalli Shankar Goud Vs The District Collector

Chitemalla Ramakka Vs Chitemalla Lasmu Bai [died]

A.Mounika Vs The District Collector

Jadi Narsu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Zareena Sultana Vs The District Collector

Ajay Kumar Agarwal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh