Official guidance, Tamil Nadu land law
D:Dis.No. 1508/P1/2022, Revision Petition on Deed of Assignment
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, issued proceedings D:Dis.No. 1508/P1/2022 dated 24 January 2023 to examine a revision petition concerning stamp duty on pending Deed of Assignment P182/2021 at the Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Chengalpattu. The petition challenges the District Registrar, Chengalpattu assessment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,87,400 and a penalty of Rs.600, but the supplied text ends before the final decision and does not establish whether the assessment was confirmed or cancelled.
What the proceedings concern
The proceedings of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, concern a Deed of Assignment executed on 26 August 2021. Velankani Information Systems Private Limited assigned leasehold rights over 1.96 acres in Thenmelpakkam Village, including buildings, to SEZ Recycling for the unexpired portion of a 99 year lease.
Mahindra World City Developers Limited, described as the developer and original lessor, also joined in executing the document. The proceedings record:
- Pending document number P182/2021 at the Joint II Sub Registrar Office, Chengalpattu.
- Total consideration of Rs.5,77,50,000.
- Rs.5,50,00,000 received by Velankani Information Systems Private Limited.
- Rs.27,50,000 received by Mahindra World City Developers Limited as transfer charges.
- Stamp duty of Rs.100 borne by the deed.
Why the document was challenged
The Joint II Sub Registrar impounded the Deed of Assignment because the registering officer considered it ineligible for stamp duty exemption. The District Registrar, Chengalpattu classified it as a transfer of lease, determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,87,400 and imposed a penalty of Rs.600.
The District Registrar considered that eligibility required execution by a Special Economic Zone developer or unit. The revision petitioner argued that the property was within a notified Special Economic Zone and that exemption depended on the property's location and connection with Special Economic Zone activities, rather than being limited to the first document.
Who may be affected
The proceedings may be relevant to developers, units, assignors and assignees dealing with leasehold property in a Special Economic Zone. They show that an assignment between units, even where the original developer joins in execution, may be examined to determine whether it qualifies as an instrument executed by or in favour of a Special Economic Zone developer or unit, or in connection with Special Economic Zone purposes.
Status of the dispute
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority considered the revision petition, written statements, District Registrar records and counsel's arguments. The supplied text ends while discussing approval letters and registration fee, before recording the final conclusion. It therefore does not show whether the claimed stamp duty or registration fee exemption was ultimately allowed.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does this document confirm that the assignment received a stamp duty exemption?
No conclusion can be drawn from the supplied text. It ends before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority records the final decision on the exemption.
How much deficit stamp duty and penalty did the District Registrar demand?
The District Registrar determined deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,87,400 and imposed a penalty of Rs.600.
What property transaction was under review?
The transaction assigned leasehold rights over 1.96 acres in Thenmelpakkam Village, together with the buildings, to SEZ Recycling for the unexpired portion of a 99 year lease.
Why did the petitioner claim a Special Economic Zone exemption?
The petitioner argued that the property was within a notified Special Economic Zone, that the transaction involved Special Economic Zone units and the developer, and that the exemption was not limited to the first document or to sale deeds.
