JUDGMENT :

T. Raja, J.

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the common order dated 24.02.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.26318 and 25268 of 2012 by the learned Single Judge.)

1. The official respondents/Registration Department have filed this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26318 of 2012, dated 24.02.2014, by which, learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, held that the Sale Certificate issued by the Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal does not require registration and thereby directed the authorities to complete the registration of documents presented for registration.

2. When the matter is taken up, Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein fairly stated that although the writ petitioner succeeded before the Writ Court, since the appeal has been filed by the department, pending appeal, in order to settle the issue, the writ petitioners have deposited the entire stamp duty to the tune of Rs.27,60,190/- in the form of Fixed Deposit in Axis Bank and ICICI Bank favouring the Registrar General of this Court on 23.02.2018 as per the order passed by this Court on 20.09.2017.

3. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Registration Department/appellants herein, placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of our Court in the case of Dr.R.Thiagarajan Vs. the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 4 and two others [2019 (4) CTC 839] submitted that the Sale Certificate issued by the authorized officer of the bank is liable for stamp duty under Article 18-C read with Article 23 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act and in the event of under valuation of the property, the Registering Authority is entitled to proceed in accordance with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

4. In the above said decision, it is seen that the writ petitioner therein purchased the property through public auction conducted by the authorized officer of the Bank under SARFAESI Act. While presenting Sale Certificate issued by the Bank for registration, the Registering Authority insisted to pay the stamp duty as per the guideline value of the property and not on the sale consideration mentioned in sale certificate and therefore, learned Single Judge having found conflicting decisions of the Division Bench, referred the matter for consideration of the Full Bench. The Hon'ble Full Bench, while answering the reference, held that if the stamp duty is not paid for the Sale Certificate and registered under law, then it is only a still born child and does not confer any right to the purchaser. When the Sale Certificate is not properly stamped and registered, it is a void document and no right would vest upon the person concerned based on the same. For better appreciation, paragraph Nos.21 to 26 are extracted below:-

21. In the unreported judgment of this Court dated 21.08.2017 made in W.A.(MD) No. 3 of 2017 [cited supra], the Division Bench of this Court held that the Authorised Officer appointed by the bank in the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act, is not a Civil or Revenue Court, Collector or Revenue Officer and he is an officer of the bank, which lend money to the borrowers, acts as an Authorized Officer, only for the purpose of bringing the property for sale. In other words, such officers merely replace the secured creditors. The Division Bench further observed that at best the Authorized Officer cannot be termed as Civil or Revenue Court, Collector or Revenue Officer. Observing so, the Division Bench held that notice issued under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, claiming stamp duty on the market value of the property is proper.

22. The Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer of the bank cannot be agnated with the Sale Certificate issued by a Civil or Revenue Court. The nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorized Officer would be irrelevant for exemption from payme