IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.19921 of 2023

1.Mr.Ramesh Kumar Gupta, 2.Ms.Sweety Gupta

3.Ms.Saroj Gupta ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Inspector General of Registration, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.

2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registration Office, Periamet, 1103, Poonamallee High Road, Park Town, Poongavanapuram, Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents, more particularly 2^nd respondent, to refund Rs.10,21,790/-, collected from the petitioners for registration of the 'Sale Certificate', registered as Doc No.343 of 2022 in Book-1 on the file of the SRO, Periamet.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.F.Manavalan For Respondents : Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the second respondent to refund a sum of Rs.10,21,790 collected from the petitioners for the registration of Sales Certificate registered as Document No.343 in Block No.1 on the file of the SRO, Periamet.

2. The petitioners purchased the subject property through public action conducted by DRT and a Sales Certificate has been issued by the authorized officer. The petitioner presented the Sale Deed certificate for registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar registered the document and released the same, after following the procedures and on payment of registration and other charges.

3. After completion of the registration and release of the document registered, the petitioners have chosen to raise an objection by stating that the Sale Certificate need not be registered compulsorily and therefore, the Sub-Registrar ought to have registered under Section 89(4) of the Act without collecting the registration charges.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the collection of registration charges are in violation of the provisions of the Act. Mere entry on record would be sufficient as far as the Sales Certificate is concerned and thus, the petitioner is entitled to get refund of the charges that had already been paid for registration. The petitioner has given representation seeking refund, which was not considered and thus the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that under Section

89(4) of the Act, procedures are contemplated to make entry of Sales Certificate to be followed and in the present case, the Sub-Registrar has registered the document by collecting registration charges, which is improper.

6. It is contended that there is no transfer of any right made pursuant to the Sale Certificate granted in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the registration became unnecessary and thus, the petitioners are entitled to seek refund.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents raised an objection by stating that under Section 17(1) of the registration Act, for documents presented by the writ petitioner, Sales Certificate is not compulsorily registrable. It is an option of the person to present the document for registration under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17(2) contemplates certain documents which is not compulsorily registrable also can be registered. Section 17(2)(xii) denotes that “any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue-Officer”. Therefore, if the Sales Certificate has been issued by a civil or revenue officer, such Sales Certificate can be registered under Section 17 of the Act also.

8. The distinction between Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) are to be borne in mind. Conveyance of right becomes mandatory, if the document is registered under Section 17(1) of the Act. However, no such conveyance of right is required in respect of all the documen