ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his Impugned order dated 25.06.2013 in Ref.No.93 of 2013 returning the copy of the Sale Certificate dated 20.03.2013 issued in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent, in DRC No.25 of 2005 by refusing to file it under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act and quash the same and direct the second respondent to file the said copy of the Sale Certificate dated 20.03.2013 in Book No.1 maintained in his office under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

2. The petitioner and others had jointly purchased the first floor of the flat admeasuring 2904 sq.ft. together with undivided share in the land admeasuring 3422 sq.ft. at Premises No.168 New No.263 situated at Sydenhams Road, Choolai, Chennai 3 comprised in Old Survey No.1159, Re-survey No.1255 C.C.No.768 in a public auction sale held on 07.10.2011 at the instance of the Chief Manager M/s.Vijaya Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch in respect of the mortgage created in their favour by the borrowers namely M/s.Vee Em Es Timber Traders and Mr.V.M.S.Zafarullah the defendants in O.A.No.36 of 2003and in execution of DRC.No.25 of 2005 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai. The third respondent had confirmed for the sale price of Rs.70,70,000/- by an order dated 23.11.2011.

3. In fact, the third respondent refused to issue the sale certificate and insisted to pay stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Appeal in Appeal No.10 of 2012 before the DRT-I and the same was allowed and directed the third respondent to issue sale certificate. Thereafter, the petitioners were issued sale certificate dated 20.03.2013 and forwarded the same to the second respondent and instructed to file the sale certificate as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

4. However, the second respondent returned the same by the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 for the reason that the second respondent to certify the stamp duty collected for the certificate of the sale or the value of the stamp papers on which the original instrument has been engrossed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale certificate was presented before the second respondent only for the purpose of filing it in his office records as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. The law does not require the payment of stamp duty and the registration fees on the auction purpose value of the property subject matter of the sale certificate.

6. He further submitted that the requirement for the payment of stamp duty under Article 18 of the Stamp duty and the payment of registration fees would arise only if presented the original sale certificate for registration under Section 23 or 25 of the Registration Act.

7. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment reported in 2007(5) SCC 745 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "when an auction purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the Court is contemplated or required and that Sale certificate issued by the Court or an Officer authorized by the Court, does not require registration. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under the Act.

8. He also relied upon the Judgment reported in 2018 (3) TNCJ 541 MB N.Naresh Kumar Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai 28 and another, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows :

"15. Therefore, the refusal by the Sub Registrar to file sale certificate issued by the Recovery Officer by making necessary entries in the Book in accordance with