A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

1. The petitioners presented rectification deeds to rectify the Block Number shown in the settlement deeds executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second and third petitioners. Exts.P1 and P2 are the settlement deeds. The rectification is to rectify only the block number shown in the settlement deeds. In the settlement deeds, the Block Number was shown as 6 instead of 5 of the Thrikkakara North Village. There is no change in identity of the property. The registering authority objected the registration of the rectification deed stating that the fair value of Block No.5 is higher than Block No.6 and therefore, the petitioners will have to pay the difference in stamp duty accordingly.

2. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is stated in paragraph 4 as follows:

It is respectfully submitted that when the Block number of the property changes from 6 to 5, the fair value will also be changed and the total consideration amount in the document will be changed to 1,08,30,375/-(out of which the land value is Rs.99,30,375/- and the value of the building is 9,00,000/-). Under these facts and circumstances, when the fair value of the property in the Resurvey Block 5 and 6 on Thrikkakkara North Village with respect to Resurvey No.444/11 are extremely different, the fair value of land in Resurvey No.444/11 of Block No.5 is much higher than that of Block No.6 of Thrikkakkara North Village. Copy of the fair value notification is produced herewith and may be marked as Annexure-R1(a). This respondent considered the Ext.P5 Rectification Deed a fresh conveyance and issued Ext.P7 speaking order dated 26.4.2018 in accordance with law.

3. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18879 of 2015 dated 17.7.2016. The learned Government Pleader particularly pointed out the paragraph 4 in the above judgment, it reads as follows:

“However, that is not the direction in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 directs the entire stamp duty to be paid, deeming it to be a fresh registration. This Court is not convinced that there are any new rights created. The boundaries of the property, the extent, the vendor and vendee, the location, all of which are identical in Exts.P1 and P2. The only difference is with respect to the sub-division number. If at all, the property existing in that sub-division has a higher fair value, then definitely the Registration Authority would be entitled the demand the additional duty determined on properties existing in Survey No.420/2, after deducting what has been paid as per Ext.P1.”

4. The question is whether the settlement deed can be registered as rectification deed and if so what is the stamp duty and registration fee thereon. I am of the view that the deeds will have to be treated as rectification deeds as the identity remains one and the same. Therefore, the question arises that whether the petitioners will have to pay the stamp duty and registration fee in accordance with the difference in fair value fixed for the property.

5. The deeds in question are settlement deeds. The settlement deed is covered under the Article 51 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Article 51(a)(1) postulates that the maximum stamp duty payable is Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner had paid the maximum stamp duty at Rs.1,000/-. No doubt, the petitioners would be liable to pay the higher stamp duty based on the fair value, if the original deed was not a settlement deed as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and also in the light of the proposition laid down by this Court in the judgment referred as above. But in the case of a settlement deed, the difference in the fair value will not make any impact as the maximum stamp duty payable is at Rs.1,000/-.

6. Next question arises what is the registration fee payable. The Government fixed the registration fees under Section 78 of the Registration Act in respect of the documents registered under the Registration Act. Table of Fees stated in C