The court affirmed the quasi-judicial discretion of registration officers in evaluating stamp duty obligations under the Registration Act.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The prayer made in the instant writ petition appertains to issuance of directions upon the respondent(s), to accept the petitioner’s application for registration of sale deed and register the sale deed keeping in view the collector rates, which remained in force till 31.03.2025.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 01.02.2025, the petitioner entered into a duly executed agreement to sell with one Dinesh Arora, in respect of Flat No.231 (New)/ 111 (Old), Category-A, First Floor, Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Sector 49-A, Chandigarh, for a total sale consideration of ₹ 61,00,000/-.

3. On 19.03.2025, the petitioner purchased Indian Non-Judicial Stamp Papers for payment of stamp duty, in view of the then prevailing DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.07 15:49 collector rates, which were notified by the office of District Collector, Chandigarh, and, which remained in force only till 31.03.2025. On account of a minor deficiency in stamp duty calculation, the petitioner purchased an additional Non-Judicial Stamp Paper on 24.03.2025. Thereafter, vide memo dated 25.03.2025, issued by the RCS, permission for transfer of leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner was granted.

4. Finally, the petitioner made attempt to secure online appointment for registration of sale deed, however, he discovered that, the online portal was closed. Resultantly, he made oral request to the Deputy Commissioner and also filed a detailed representation before the latter on 31.03.2025, however, the same did not yield any fruits. In the meantime, the U.T. Administration issued a fresh notification dated 25.03.2025, thereby notifying the new and increased collector rates for property registration, which have come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2025.

5. For the reasons (supra), the petitioner could not get the sale deed registered before 31.03.2025, and now, if he wants registration thereof, he is required to pay the enhanced stamp duty on the basis of the newly notified increased collector rates. In this way, the supersession of the collector rates prevailing until 31.03.2025 by the newly increased collector rates has propelled the petitioner to approach this Court, for issuance of directions upon the respondent(s) to register the sale deed on the basis of the previous year’s collector rates.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that, in the event of any malfunction or error in the online registration portal, especially at such crucial period when the prevailing collector rates were nearing supersession, the administration ought to have deployed an alternative mechanism, thereby enabling the public at large to get their deeds registered offline. However, despite the petitioner making numerous requests, no tangible solution was provided by the administration and as a result thereof, the petitioner could not get his sale deed registered on the basis of stamp duty as per the collector rates prevailing till 31.03.2025. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer and pay higher stamp duty, on account of the inaction solely on the part of the administration.

7. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the new collector rates notified on 25.03.2025 were scheduled to come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2025. Therefore, when the petitioner approached the authority concerned prior to 01.04.2025 for registration of sale deed, the latter ought to have registered the same on the basis of the then prevailing collector rates but the