Proceedings in Pa.Mu. No. 24456/P1/2023 on rectification deed review petition
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in proceedings Pa.Mu. No. 24456/P1/2023 dated 9 February 2024, decided a review petition about a rectification deed pending as document No. P222/2022 at Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office. The proceedings set aside the Tambaram District Registrar's demand for deficit stamp duty and penalty, and held that this document is only a mere rectification deed, not one that attracts duty under Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
What this document is
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, issued proceedings Pa.Mu. No. 24456/P1/2023 dated 9 February 2024 on a review petition filed by Thiru G. Kulandhai Anand. The case concerns pending document No. P222/2022 at Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office, described as a rectification deed written on 25 November 2022 by Thiru P. Vikraman and Thiru R. Gopalakrishnan.
What the dispute was about
The Tambaram District Registrar had earlier treated the rectification deed as a document falling under Section 47-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
Key facts recorded in the proceedings are:
- the purchaser was Thiru G. Kulandhai Anand
- the stamp duty borne by the rectification deed was Rs. 100
- the property value before rectification was shown as Rs. 16,80,000
- the property value after rectification was shown as Rs. 56,28,000
- the Tambaram District Registrar fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,76,360 and penalty of Rs. 640
The proceedings say the earlier sale deed, document No. 4975/2008, had typing mistakes in two boundaries. In the north boundary, plot No. 98 had been typed as road. In the west boundary, plot No. 108 and 30 feet road had been typed only as 30 feet road. The rectification deed was executed to correct those mistakes.
What the Inspector General decided
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, recorded that the District Registrar had not classified the document under Section 47-B merely because two boundaries were changed. Instead, the District Registrar relied on the increase in market value shown after rectification.
After examining the circular and earlier orders, the proceedings conclude:
- the reason relied on by the District Registrar did not fit paragraph V(b) of the circular dated 3 September 2014
- a rise in market value mentioned in a rectification deed does not by itself mean every such deed must be classified under Section 47-B
- earlier orders had already held that even where two or three boundaries were changed in a prior sale deed, the rectification deed need not be classified under Section 47-B
- changing two boundaries does not, in this case, make it a duty attracting rectification under Section 47-B
Why it matters to buyers and owners
This proceedings is useful if your rectification deed only corrects mistakes in an earlier document, especially boundary descriptions, without changing the village, survey number or extent. It shows that the Registration Department can treat such a document as a mere rectification deed and cancel a demand for deficit stamp duty and penalty when Section 47-B has been applied only because the post-rectification market value is shown as higher.
Final outcome
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, allowed the review petition and rejected the Tambaram District Registrar's order.
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 proceedings say that changing two boundaries always attracts extra stamp duty?
No. The proceedings conclude that changing two boundaries in this case does not require classification under Section 47-B, and the document was treated as a mere rectification deed.
Why had the Tambaram District Registrar demanded deficit stamp duty and penalty?
The Tambaram District Registrar relied on the fact that the property value shown after rectification was higher than the value shown before rectification, and fixed deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2,76,360 and penalty of Rs. 640.
What mistake was the rectification deed trying to correct?
The proceedings say the earlier sale deed had typing mistakes in two boundaries. The north boundary was typed as road instead of plot No. 98, and the west boundary was typed as 30 feet road instead of plot No. 108 and 30 feet road.
What was the final result for document No. P222/2022 at Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, allowed the review petition and set aside the Tambaram District Registrar's order, holding that the document is a mere rectification deed not attracting duty under Section 47-B.
