Official guidance, Tamil Nadu land law
Proceedings No. 45215/P1/2019, Final Order on Revision Petition, 2024
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department, through the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, issued Proceedings No. 45215/P1/2019 dated 8 August 2024, dismissing a revision petition concerning settlement deed PO2/2018 at the Joint Sub Registrar No. 1 Office, Mayiladuthurai. The authority upheld the Mayiladuthurai District Registrar’s decision to include the building with the land for stamp duty purposes and to demand deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,89,846 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings No. 45215/P1/2019 dated 8 August 2024 were issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department. The proceedings dismiss a revision petition filed against the Mayiladuthurai District Registrar’s order dated 23 September 2019 under section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act.
The disputed instrument was settlement deed PO2/2018, presented at the Joint Sub Registrar No. 1 Office, Mayiladuthurai. It was executed on 26 September 2018 by K.V.S. Karunanidhi and B. Rajeswaran in favour of Aswath Education and Charitable Trust, represented by trustee R. Sattainathan.
Property and stamp duty details
The settlement deed recorded the property value as Rs. 1,04,88,600 and carried stamp duty of Rs. 7,34,250. The District Registrar treated it as a settlement to a person who was not a family member under 58(a)(ii), with the building included in the instrument.
Key findings were:
- The land had earlier been leased to Aswath Education and Charitable Trust for 33 years.
- The settlement deed described only the vacant land and claimed that buildings put up by the lessee were excluded.
- The petitioners stated that the buildings had been constructed from the income of Silver Jubilee Matriculation School.
- The District Registrar relied on a building valuation made by a Public Works Department Assistant Executive Engineer.
- The District Registrar demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,89,846 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000.
Why the revision was rejected
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority examined the petitioners’ arguments, the District Registrar’s original file and a property tax receipt. The property tax assessment stood in the names of K.V.S. Karunanidhi, S. Parthasarathi and Rajeswaran, rather than in the name of the lessee trust.
The authority also considered the Supreme Court decision in Bhatia Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. versus D.C. Patel. Based on that decision and the property tax receipt, the authority found no basis to treat the building as belonging to the trust receiving the settlement. The District Registrar’s assessment was therefore upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.
Who is affected
Proceedings No. 45215/P1/2019 directly affect the named parties, the trust and settlement deed PO2/2018. They also show that claiming a lessee constructed a building may not, by itself, exclude that building when stamp duty is assessed, particularly where property tax records remain in the landowners’ names.
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 settlement deed treated as covering only the vacant land?
No. Although the deed stated that only the vacant land was being settled, the registration authorities treated the building as included with the land.
Why was the trust’s claim to the building rejected?
The property tax receipt named the landowners rather than the trust. The authority also relied on the Supreme Court decision cited in the proceedings and found no basis to regard the building as belonging to the trust.
How much additional stamp duty and penalty were upheld?
The upheld demand was deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,89,846 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000.
What happened to the revision petition?
The Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Mayiladuthurai District Registrar’s decision.
