JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State on behalf of the District Registrar, Alappuzha, and the Sub Registrar, Mannar, impugning the judgment dated 10.12.2025 in WP(C).No.8971 of 2015.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: The writ petitioner, who was an auction purchaser of property put in public auction pursuant to Execution of the decree in E.P.No.11/2008 in O.S.No.71/2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, was issued with Ext.P1 sale certificate. With a view to effecting mutation in the revenue records, the writ petitioner registered the sale certificate with the Sub Registrar Office, Mannar, as Deed No.24/12 of SRO Mannar. In the said registered document, the extent of the property purchased by him, as reflected in the sale certificate, was shown as 4 Ares and 24 Sq. Metres in Re-Sy No.20/1 of Chennithala village. When the writ petitioner approached the revenue authority for mutating the property, it was found that the property actually obtained by him in the auction comprised 6 Ares and 80 Sq. Metres in Re-Sy.No.21/2 of Chennithala village. The mutation of the property to the extent shown in the registered Deed No.24/2012 of SRO, Mannar, was not, therefore, carried out. The writ petitioner, therefore, approached the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, with a petition for effecting corrections in the sale certificate that was registered as Deed No.24/12 of SRO Mannar. By an order dated 30.01.2015 in E.A.No.97 of 2013 in E.P.No.11 of 2008 in O.S.No.71 of 2005, the Munsiff's Court permitted the SRO Mannar to carry out the corrections in Deed No.24/12 by changing the Re-Survey Number of the property to Re-Survey No.21/2 instead of 20/1 and correcting the extent of the property as 6 Ares 80 Sq. Metres, (equivalent to 16.80 cents), in lieu of 4 Ares 24 Sq. Metres, (equivalent to 11 cents) as recorded in the originally registered Deed No.24/12 of SRO Mannar.

3. Acting on the basis of the aforementioned order of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, the writ petitioner approached the Registering Authority with a rectification deed so as to carry out the corrections aforementioned in the original deed. At that stage, the writ petitioner was informed that he would have to pay additional stamp duty in terms of Entry 16 to the Schedule to the Stamp Act read with Section 45A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. It was aggrieved by the said direction to pay additional stamp duty, that the writ petitioner approached this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned.

4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter allowed the Writ Petition on the finding that insofar as what was presented before the Registering Authority was a mere rectification deed, and there was no change in the purchase value shown in respect of the property in question, no additional stamp duty was required for registering the same, as the correction sought to be effected was only of mistakes in the original sale certificate. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Sub Registrar to register the rectification deed without insisting on additional stamp duty.

5. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.M.K.Arun Kumar, based on the pleadings in the Writ Appeal, that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that while there was no correction effected to the purchase value of the property, there was a change effected to the extent of land and the survey number of the land that was transferred in favour of the writ petitioner in the auction sale. He refers to the provisions of Section 45A of the Kerala Stamp Act, which mandates that a verification has to be done by the Registering Officer as to whether the value of the land or the consideration set forth in the instrument is less than the fair value of the land or not. It is his submission that while the extent of land and the survey number of the land shown in the original