ORDER :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the Impugned Refusal Check Slip passed by the 1^st respondent in Refusal Number RFL/POTHUMBU/44/2026 dated 27.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to file the Sale Certificate presented by the 2^nd respondent in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting payment stamp duty and registration fee and within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the 2^nd respondent, notice is dispensed with.

3. In pursuance of the sale notice under SARFAESI Act, the second respondent sold the subject property to the petitioner, as the petitioner being the highest bidder. The said sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued on 16.02.2026 in favour of the petitioner. The second respondent requested the first respondent to file the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

4. However, the first respondent rejected the request made by the second respondent and passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 thereby directing to pay 7% stamp duty and 2% as registration fees. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale certificate was presented before the first respondent only for the purpose of filing it in his office records as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. It does not require the payment of stamp duty and the registration fees on the auction purchase value of the property subject matter of the sale certificate.

6. The requirement for the payment of stamp duty under Article 18 of the Stamp Act 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 sub-section (4) of Section 89 of the Registration Act is not justified. The copy of the sale certificate thus filed in Book No.1 which contains all the relevant details and all that is the Sub Registrar is required to do is to file a copy of the certificate in Book No.1 and nothing more.

16.In B.Arvind Kumar Vs.Government of Indiaand others reported in JT 2007 (8) SC 602, it is held t