IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 1679 of 2024 RAJESH PRASAD KUSHWAH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vasu Jain- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthi- Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State.

Shri Vikram Johri- Advocate for the respondent no.5.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated

08.05.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby the Writ petition no.23960/2023 has been dismissed and the demand of Rs.6,67,977/- has been upheld.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

(a) The petitioner/appellant purchased the immovable property situated at Khasra No.33/1/1, Village Khanpura, Near Mandideep, Phase-II, Tehsil - Goharganj, District Raisen in a e-auction proceeding conducted by respondent no.5/Bank. Upon making full payment of Rs.25.60 lacs, the respondent no.5 issued a sale certificate dated 05.04.2023 in favour of the petitioner. Simultaneously, respondent no. 5 sent an intimation to respondent no. 4 regarding the issuance of a sale certificate to the petitioner in compliance with the provisions of Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner/appellant also approached respondent No. 4 to get the sale certificate entered into Book No. 1 as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act; however, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 40 of the Stamp Act. The respondent no.2 registered a Case No.04/B-103/2023-24 demanding stamp duty of Rs.6,67,977/- under section

40 of the Stamp Act on the market value of the property.

(b) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the writ court by way of W.P No. 23960 of 2023, despite a reamedy of an appeal against the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitoner placed reliance on the various judgments passed by the Apex Court and this Court before the writ court, but the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by placing reliance on Article 19 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp (M.P Amendment) Act, 2015. Paragraph-6 is reproduced as below:-

"6.It is true that Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd (Supra) has held that “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 Bank under the SARFESI 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”, but in view of the Indian Stamp (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2015, the Stamp Duty is payable as per Article 19 of Schedule 1-A MP which reads as under:-

Hence, this writ appeal is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the impugned order was passed by the writ court, the Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal No.12527 of 2024 (State of Punjab & anr. Vs. M/S Ferrous Alloy Forgings Private Ltd decided on 19th November, 2024 (reported in 2024 INSC 890); has held that the sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. 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. Thus, 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 requires registration under sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act. It is not the issuance of the sale certificate which transfers the title in favour of the auction purchaser. This sale certificate is required to be registered in Book-