P.Mu.No. 46323/P1/2016, Final Order on Rectification Deed Stamp Duty Review, 20 February 2019
The Tamil Nadu Registration Department, through the Director of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, issued proceedings P.Mu.No. 46323/P1/2016 dated 20 February 2019, allowing a review petition concerning rectification deed P.162/2015 filed at the Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office. The authority treated the document as an ordinary rectification deed and cancelled the South Chennai District Registrar's demand for deficit stamp duty of Rs.12,51,220 and a penalty of Rs.3,880.
What the proceedings decide
Proceedings P.Mu.No. 46323/P1/2016 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Department concern a rectification deed executed on 29 May 2015 by N. Manoharan in favour of Stella Sunitha. The deed was presented at the Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office and kept pending as document P.162/2015.
The rectification deed changed all four boundaries stated in the earlier sale deed, document 4783/2007. It did not change the village, survey number or extent of the property.
The Director of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority concluded that changing the boundaries did not change the property's location. The review petition was accepted and the South Chennai District Registrar's order was set aside.
Why additional stamp duty was demanded
The registering officer considered the replacement of all four boundaries to amount to a complete change in the property's location. The document was therefore classified as a fresh conveyance and referred to the District Registrar.
The South Chennai District Registrar treated the rectification as involving a property transfer and ordered payment of:
- Deficit stamp duty of Rs.12,51,220.
- Penalty of Rs.3,880.
- Total amount of Rs.12,55,100.
The rectification deed had carried stamp duty of Rs.100.
Reasons for allowing the review
The review authority considered the original file, the applicant's arguments, revenue records and the field measurement book map. The records showed that:
- The property was in Moolacheri Village, survey number 29/5B1A.
- The total extent in that survey number was 0.41 acre.
- The entire 0.41 acre had already been sold to Stella Sunitha under document 4783/2007 dated 14 September 2007.
- The rectification deed changed only the four boundaries.
- The village, survey number and extent remained unchanged.
Because the full extent in survey number 29/5B1A had already been sold, the authority found that correcting its boundaries could not shift the property's location. The document was therefore held to be an ordinary rectification deed rather than a fresh conveyance.
Who is affected
Proceedings P.Mu.No. 46323/P1/2016 directly affect Stella Sunitha, N. Manoharan, pending document P.162/2015 and the South Chennai registration authorities. For other property owners, the decision shows the specific factors examined here when corrected boundaries were alleged to create a fresh transfer, particularly whether the survey number, extent and property location remained unchanged.
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
Did the authority cancel the additional stamp duty and penalty?
Yes. The review petition was accepted and the South Chennai District Registrar's order demanding Rs.12,51,220 in deficit stamp duty and Rs.3,880 as penalty was set aside.
Why was the rectification deed not treated as a new sale deed?
The authority found that only the four boundaries were changed. The village, survey number and extent remained the same, and the entire 0.41 acre in survey number 29/5B1A had already been sold.
Which property and registration office were involved?
The property was in Moolacheri Village, survey number 29/5B1A, with an extent of 0.41 acre. The rectification deed was filed at the Pallavaram Sub Registrar Office as pending document P.162/2015.
What records did the review authority consider?
The authority considered the original file, the applicant's submissions, revenue records and the field measurement book map supplied during the proceedings.
