O R D E R

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted for directing the

2nd respondent to register the Sale Certificate dated 11.04.2017 issued by the State Bank of India and return the same to the petitioner with further direction to refund a sum of Rs.17,88,000/- (stamp duty – Rs.5,96,000/- and registration charges – Rs.11,92,000/-) which was paid in excess by way of issuance of a voucher to the Treasury in the name of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the auction purchaser, purchased the property through an auction sale conducted by the Authorized Officer of State Bank of India. The petitioner presented the Sale Certificate for registration before the 2nd respondent / the Sub Registrar. On presentation of the Sale Certificate for registration, the petitioner was directed to pay a stamp duty of 7 % on the value of the sale certificate along with 4% on the registration charges and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.20,86,000/- and Rs.11,92,000/- respectively.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition to register the Sale Certificate dated 11.04.2017 issued by the State Bank of India and return the same to the petitioner with further direction to refund a sum of Rs.17,88,000/- (stamp duty – Rs.5,96,000/- and registration charges – Rs.11,92,000/-) which was paid in excess by way of issuance of a voucher to the Treasury in the name of the petitioner since, on calculations by the petitioner, he ought to have only paid 5% on the value of consideration mentioned in the Sales Certificate and the entire registration charges @ 4%

is to be refunded.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of the Bell Tower Enterprises LLP -vs- The State of Tamil Nadu dated 12.09.2022 passed in W.P.No. 23237 of 2018. The following paragraphs are relied on:

9.Countering the said submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader based on the judgement of the two Divisional Benches and the Full Bench of this Court, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel would submit that the judgments of the Division Bench and the Full Bench in The Inspector General of Registration v.Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru's case over ruled by the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, reported in 2021 (11) SCC 537, the learned counsel would place considerable reliance on the following passage in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd, in support of his contention:

.. “16. We are of the view that the mandate of law in terms of Section 17(2) (xii) read with Section 89)4) of the Registration Act, 1908 only required the authorised officer of the Banch under the SARFAESI Act to hand over the duly validated sale certificate to the auction-purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act.”

25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Spreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the law as it stands today is that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be Revenue Officer and the certificate issued by hi in evidence of such sale, would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by him. The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The Inpector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R.Thiagarajan v. Inspector General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E