Proceedings No. 19618/P1/2022, Revision Petition on Rectification Deed
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department issued Proceedings No. 19618/P1/2022 dated 1 March 2023, allowing a revision petition concerning rectification deed P170/2020 at the Poonamallee Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings classify the document as an ordinary rectification deed that does not attract stamp duty and set aside the District Registrar's demand for deficient stamp duty of Rs.3,18,590 and a penalty of Rs.1,410.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 19618/P1/2022 dated 1 March 2023, issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department, concern rectification deed P170/2020 at the Poonamallee Sub Registrar Office. The revision was filed by S. Durga Bhavani against the South Chennai District Registrar's decision dated 15 September 2021.
The District Registrar had treated the rectification deed as a fresh sale under provision 23 of the Indian Stamp Act. Deficient stamp duty of Rs.3,18,590 and a penalty of Rs.1,410 were imposed under section 40(1)(b). The revision was considered under section 56(1).
Nature of the correction
Rectification deed P170/2020, executed on 9 December 2020, relates to an earlier sale deed numbered 72/2007. The earlier deed failed to state that Eeswaramoorthy executed it as the power agent of the property owners, S. Sankaravel and S. Sudha. Its wording instead suggested that the agent was the property owner.
The rectification deed added the names of the principals and the power of attorney document details. It did not change:
- The extent of the property.
- The four boundaries.
- The village name.
- The property described in the earlier documents.
Reasons for allowing the revision
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the omitted principal and power of attorney details resulted from oversight. A comparison of the property descriptions showed no change to the property already conveyed and no intention to avoid government revenue.
The decision relied on Registration Department Circular No. 40756/N1/2014 dated 3 September 2014. That circular states that a correction which does not affect the stamp duty chargeable on the principal deed may be treated as a mere rectification, including corrections that do not alter property boundaries or extent.
The proceedings also applied the reasoning in Proceedings No. 48334/P1/2016 dated 7 February 2018 concerning errors in the name of a principal and power of attorney particulars.
Practical effect
Proceedings No. 19618/P1/2022 conclude that rectification deed P170/2020 cannot be classified as an instrument under section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is treated as an ordinary rectification deed that does not attract stamp duty. The District Registrar's earlier decision was set aside and S. Durga Bhavani's revision petition was accepted.
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
Was the rectification deed treated as a new sale deed?
No. Proceedings No. 19618/P1/2022 classify it as an ordinary rectification deed because it only added omitted power of attorney details and did not change the property.
What stamp duty and penalty had the District Registrar demanded?
The South Chennai District Registrar had fixed deficient stamp duty of Rs.3,18,590 and a penalty of Rs.1,410. That decision was set aside.
Does every rectification deed avoid additional stamp duty?
The source does not say that every rectification deed is exempt. It states that a correction which does not affect the chargeability of the principal deed, such as one with no change to boundaries or extent, may be treated as a mere rectification.
Did the correction change the extent or boundaries of the property?
No. The proceedings record that the property extent, four boundaries, village name and location remained unchanged.
