Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ
The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Sivaramakrishnan Hariharar – Respondent
W.A.No. 1976 of 2025 | C.M.P.No. 14943 of 2025 | W.P.No. 9838 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Ravindran, Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik, Mr.Harish
For the Respondents: Mr.A.K.Sriram, Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, Akash Srinandha
Stamp duty is only applicable when a sale certificate is used for transfer of title; allowing patta issuance without unpaid stamp duty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act - Section 89 - Auction sale certificate - No stamp duty required on sale certificate presented for registration by auction purchaser until used for further transfer of title; the issuance of patta does not constitute use for 'some other purpose'. (Paras 11, 12, 16-18)
(B) Legal Principle - Issuance of patta does not require stamp duty under current legal interpretation, affirming that patta pass book merely indicates possession and is not a title transfer. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The property in question sold at auction to the respondent faced rejection for patta issuance due to alleged unpaid stamp duty as claimed by the Tahsildar. The writ court found this to exceed authority.
Findings of Court:
The sale certificate does not require stamp duty unless used for title transfer. The court must ensure compliance with specified requirements upon issuing a patta.
Issues: Whether the Tahsildar’s rejection of patta based on unpaid stamp duty was permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: A sale certificate by the auction purchaser is not compulsorily registrable and stamp duty does not apply unless for conveyance; patta is for mere possession.
Result: Appeal dismissed. The patta must contain a related caveat.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on property and revenue authority actions (Para 1 , 7 , 11) |
| 2. facts related to the sale certificate issuance and patta request (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding stamp duty assessment rights (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. legal clarifications on stamp duty and property rights (Para 12 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final decision regarding patta issuance compliance (Para 22) |
(Per :- Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The State is aggrieved by an order passed on 20.03.2025 by the writ Court.
2. The sole respondent was the writ petitioner and had sought a quash of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 28.02.2025.
3. The brief facts are that the property at Plot Nos.18, 19 &
20(SP) in Survey Nos. 425 to 429 – Parts, Ambattur Village and S.No. 24,26,27,29,140,141 to 151, 154, 157, 167 and 169 parts of Mannurpet Village and present Town Survey No. 8/2, Ward-F, Lock 10, Mannurpet Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai District (erstwhile Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District) being part of Plot No.18,19 and 20(SP) ad-measuring 165 grounds at Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘property’ / ‘subject property’ / ‘property in question’) had been purchased by the respondent in an auction.
4. Sale certificate had been issued in the name of the petitioner on 13.03.2023, presented before the Sub-Registrar, Konnur and entered in Book – 1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act (Act).
5. An application made by the respondent seeking issuance of patta had been decided adverse to the respondent, the Tahsildar relying upon G.O.(Ms).No.28, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 23.03.2023, wherein Article 4-A was inserted providing for 11% stamp duty for registration of a sale certificate under Section 89 (4)(2) of the Act.
6. Since the respondent had not remitted the stamp duty as above, the Tahsildar was of the view that patta could not be issued. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab & Anr v M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd & Ors, [2024 INSC 890] , specifically on the observations of the Court that stamp duty will have to be paid if the auction purchaser uses the certificate for ‘some other purpose’.
7. No counter has been filed by the State as the writ petition has been allowed even at the stage of admission. The writ court concluded that the Revenue department could not have made a demand of stamp duty as only the registration department was entitled to do the same. Thus, being of the view that the Tahsildar had gone beyond the permissible scope of enquiry, the writ petition came to be allowed and direction issued for grant of patta within four weeks from date of receipt of that order.
8. Mr.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.Harish, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State assailed the order of the writ court pointing out that there had been no demand of stamp duty, and what the officer had sought to do is to merely reject the request for patta on the ground that stamp duty had not been paid. They would also rely on G.O.(Ms).No.28 dated 23.03.2023 cited by the officer in the order impugned in writ petition.
9. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, for the respondent, on caveat, would support the impugned order reiterating that it is not for the officials of the revenue department to make demands of stamp duty.
10. We have heard the rival contentions.
11. That the subject property has been bought in auction is admitted. It is also admitted that sale certificate has been issued in the name of the respondent and has been duly entered in Book – 1 on presentation before the Sub Registrar. As held by a catena of judgments [see (i) Esjaypee Impex Private Limited v Assistant General Manager and authorized officer, Canara Bank , [(2021) 11 SCC 537] and Inspector General of Registration and another v G.Madhurambal and another , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 2079]], the legal position stands s
