We are given to understand that the Contempt Petition is slated for hearing before the learned single Judge on 14.07.2025. Hence, while dismissing this Writ Appeal, we reiterate that as and when patta is issued, it shall be in compliance with the caveat as stipulated in paragraph 20 supra. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [A.S.M, J.] [K.G.T, J.]

2025:MHC:1626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.07.2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 11.07.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.A.No. 1976 of 2025 and
C.M.P.No. 14943 of 2025
The Tahsildar,
Ambattur Taluk,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053. .. Appellant
vs
M/s. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.Sivaramakrishnan Hariharar,
No.603, 5th Floor, Chettinad Towers,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order dated 20.03.2025 made in W.P.No. 9838 of 2025.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik
and
Mr.Harish, Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Sriram, Senior Counsel
For Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram
& Akash Srinandha
JUDGMENT
(Per :- Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
The State is aggrieved by an order passed on 20.03.2025 by the writ Court.
2. The sole respondent was the writ petitioner and had sought a quash of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 28.02.2025.
3. The brief facts are that the property at Plot Nos.18, 19 & 20(SP) in Survey Nos. 425 to 429 – Parts, Ambattur Village and S.No.
24,26,27,29,140,141 to 151, 154, 157, 167 and 169 parts of Mannurpet
Village and present Town Survey No. 8/2, Ward-F, Lock 10, Mannurpet
Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai District (erstwhile Ambattur Taluk,
Tiruvallur District) being part of Plot No.18,19 and 20(SP) ad-measuring
165 grounds at Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘property’ / ‘subject property’ / ‘property in question’) had been purchased by the respondent in an auction.
4. Sale certificate had been issued in the name of the petitioner on 13.03.2023, presented before the Sub-Registrar, Konnur and entered in Book – 1 under Section 89 of the Registration Act (Act).
5. An application made by the respondent seeking issuance of patta had been decided adverse to the respondent, the Tahsildar relying upon G.O.(Ms).No.28, Commercial Taxes and Registration (J2) Department dated 23.03.2023, wherein Article 4-A was inserted providing for 11% stamp duty for registration of a sale certificate under Section 89(4)(2) of the Act.
6. Since the respondent had not remitted the stamp duty as above, the Tahsildar was of the view that patta could not be issued. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab & Anr v M/s. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd & Ors1, specifically on the observations of the Court that stamp duty will have to be paid if the auction purchaser uses the certificate for ‘some other purpose’.
7. No counter has been filed by the State as the writ petition has

1 2024 INSC 890
been allowed even at the stage of admission. The writ court concluded that the Revenue department could not have made a demand of stamp duty as only the registration department was entitled to do the same. Thus, being of the view that the Tahsildar had gone beyond the permissible scope of enquiry, the writ petition came to be allowed and direction issued for grant of patta within four weeks from date of receipt of that order.
8. Mr.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.Harish, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State assailed the order of the writ court pointing out that there had been no demand of stamp duty, and what the officer had sought to do is to merely reject the request for patta on the ground that stamp duty had not been paid. They would also rely on G.O.(Ms).No.28 dated 23.03.2023 cited by the officer in the order impugned in writ petition.
9. Per contra, Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for Mr.Anirudh A.Sriram, for the respondent, on caveat, would support the impugned order reiterating that it is not for the officials of the revenue department to make demands of stamp duty.
10. We have heard the rival contentions.
11. That the subject property has been bought in auction is admitted. It is also admitted that sale certificate has been issued in the name of the respondent and has been duly entered in Book – 1 on presentation before the Sub Registrar. As held by a catena of judgments [see (i) Esjaypee Impex Private Limited v Assistant General Manager and authorized officer, Canara Bank and Inspector General of Registration and another v G.Madhurambal and another3], the legal position stands settled that a sale certificate is not an instrument of the kind mentioned in Section 17(1) of the Registration Act so as to require compulsorily registration.
12. Section 89(4) of the Act only requires the authorized officer of the bank under the SARFAESI Act to forward the duly validated sale certificate to the registering authorities to lodge in Book – 1 as per Section 89 of the Act. This sequence of events is not a conveyance subject to stamp duty. In the present case, this is what has transpired. Admittedly, no stamp duty has been paid as on date.
13. In the case of Ferrous Alloy , the Supreme Court has reiterated the above legal position. The Court was concerned with an appeal filed by the State of Punjab against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing the writ petition directing the State to handover the original sale certificate and comply with the requirements under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act. The question formulated by the High Court was ‘Whether a sale certificate issued in pursuance to a Court’s auction is required to be stamped’.
14. The High Court had noted the controversy to the effect that although the sale certificate is undoubtedly not compulsorily registrable yet it was mandatory for the auction purchaser to deposit stamp duty in order to be entitled to the sale certificate. That question had been answered in favour of the purchaser by the High Court.
15. Referring to the judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Pramod Kumar Gupta , in the context of Order XXI Rule 92 of CPC, the Court concluded that sale certificates issued by the authorized officer are not compulsorily registrable. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, they also referred to the judgments in Smt. Shanti Devi L Singh v Tax Recovery Officer and others , B.Arvind Kumar v Govt. of India and
others .
16. Being the most recent reiteration of this position by the Apex
Court, the relevant paragraph is extracted below:-
“20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.”
17. The Court while concluding in favour of the purchaser that the transaction does not amount to conveyance exigible to stamp duty, clarified that the question of stamp duty would arise only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for ‘some other purpose’.
18. The appellant has urged that issuance of patta would come within the ambit of the phrase ‘some other purpose’. We disagree, as in our view, what has been meant by use of the phrase ‘some other purpose’ is the use of the sale certificate in a transaction involving the transfer of title, such as, further conveyance, or in a suit for declaration of title before the civil court. Hence and to reiterate, the interpretation of the phrase for ‘some other purpose’, must be understood to mean some purpose which would involve the transfer of title so as to bring that transaction within the ambit of liability to stamp duty.
19. A patta pass book is normally understood to indicate merely that the pattadhar is in possession of the property specified in that document. Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983 states that entries in the patta pass book would constitute prima facie evidence of title of the person in whose name the patta pass book has been issued to the parcels of land entered in the patta pass book, free of any prior encumbrance, unless otherwise specified therein.
20. Hence, while rejecting the argument of the State to the effect that issuance of a patta is an act which would render the sale certificate liable to stamp duty, we would, by way of abundant caution, direct that the patta issued must contain a caveat specifying the background in which it is being issued, and the transaction it relates to.
21. As far as reference to G.O.(Ms).No.28 dated 23.03.2023 is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced. In fact, that GO is the subject matter of challenge before the Madurai Bench of this Court which has, vide an order passed in W.P.(MD) No. 8431 of 2023 on 13.04.2023, and referring to the judgment in the case of G.Madhurambal granted an interim stay of the same until further orders. The Bench has directed that the sale certificate in that case shall be accepted by the authorities without insisting upon the stamp duty, though with a caveat that it shall be subject to the result of that writ petition.
22. We are given to understand that the Contempt Petition is slated for hearing before the learned single Judge on 14.07.2025. Hence, while dismissing this Writ Appeal, we reiterate that as and when patta is issued, it shall be in compliance with the caveat as stipulated in paragraph 20 supra. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M, J.] [K.G.T, J.]
11.07.2025
Index: Yes
Neutral Citation: Yes ssm
To
M/s. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.Sivaramakrishnan Hariharar,
No.603, 5th Floor, Chettinad Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006.
DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
ssm W.A.No.1976 of 2025
11.07.2025