ப.மு.8059/ப்பி1/2022 நாள்.23.12.2022
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority issued proceedings ப.மு.8059/ப்பி1/2022 on 23 December 2022, accepting a revision petition concerning rectification deed P6/2019 at the Joint Sub-Registrar Office Number 2, Chengalpattu. The proceedings set aside the Chengalpattu District Registrar’s demand for deficit stamp duty and penalty because the rectification corrected measurement units without changing the property, its location or the rights already conveyed.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings ப.மு.8059/ப்பி1/2022, issued by the Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on 23 December 2022, concern a deed of rectification dated 5 February 2019. The revision petition was accepted, and the Chengalpattu District Registrar’s earlier order was set aside.
The main outcomes were:
- The rectification deed could not be classified under Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act in the circumstances of this case.
- The demand for deficit stamp duty of Rs.4,24,805 and penalty of Rs.1,195 was cancelled.
- The deed was treated as a rectification that did not attract stamp duty on the basis applied by the District Registrar.
Property document and dispute
The case concerned pending document P6/2019 at the Joint Sub-Registrar Office Number 2, Chengalpattu. The deed corrected errors in an earlier sale deed, where 1,880 square feet had mistakenly been entered as 1,880 square metres. Boundary measurements of 40 feet and 47 feet had also mistakenly been entered in metres.
The rectification deed carried stamp duty of Rs.100. No property value was stated in it, while the earlier sale deed had adopted a value of Rs.13,16,000.
Why the revision petition succeeded
The Head of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority found that the extent, four boundaries, village name and names of the parties had not changed. Earlier document number 669/2018 also recorded the measurements in square feet.
The person who executed the earlier sale deed had legal title and possession only over 1,880 square feet, not 1,880 square metres. Correcting the unit therefore did not reduce an interest previously conveyed, move the property to another location or affect ownership rights.
The proceedings distinguish such corrections from rectifications that change the property’s location, alter rights, reduce an extent actually conveyed or create a difference in stamp duty liability.
Who is affected
Proceedings ப.மு.8059/ப்பி1/2022 directly affect the parties to document P6/2019 and the Chengalpattu registration authorities. Property owners and buyers dealing with similar unit or typing errors may find the reasoning relevant, but the decision depended on the earlier documents and on there being no actual change to the property, location or ownership rights.
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
Do I have to pay additional stamp duty merely to correct square metres to square feet?
In document P6/2019, additional stamp duty was not payable because the correction did not change the actual property, its location or the rights conveyed. The earlier records showed that the property was 1,880 square feet.
What happened to the deficit stamp duty and penalty demanded by the Chengalpattu District Registrar?
The demand for Rs.4,24,805 in deficit stamp duty and Rs.1,195 as penalty was set aside when the revision petition was accepted.
When can a rectification deed attract Section 47-B?
The proceedings state that Section 47-B may apply where the correction changes the property’s location, affects ownership rights, reduces an interest already conveyed or creates a difference in stamp duty liability.
Does this decision apply to every rectification deed in Tamil Nadu?
The decision concerns pending document P6/2019 at the Joint Sub-Registrar Office Number 2, Chengalpattu. Its conclusion was based on the earlier documents showing that only measurement units had been entered incorrectly.
