IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:22.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.26531 of 2010 K.A.Shabu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Revenue Officer, Stamps Division, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Kundrathur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return the Rectification deed vide pending document No.8830/2009 registered on 17.11.2009 in their office executed in favour of the petitioner relating to property conveyed and situated at No.75, Noombal Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai M.G.R.District, now Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvalloor district comprised in old survey No.81/B-12, B- 13, patta no.773 as per patta new survey No.128/4 and 128/6 to an extent of 5 grounds or 12,000 sq.ft. and thereabouts without insisting on payment of additional stamp duty as per the guideline value as on the date of registration expeditiously and in accordance with law. For Petitioner :Mr.D.Rajasekaran For Respondents :Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, GA ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return the Rectification deed vide pending document No.8830/2009 registered on 17.11.2009 in their office executed in favour of the petitioner relating to property conveyed and situated at No.75, Noombal Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengai M.G.R.District, now at Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvalloor district, comprised in old survey no.81/B-12, B-13, patta no.773 and new survey no.128/4 and 128/6 to an extent of 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grounds or 12,000 sq.ft. and thereabouts without insisting on payment of additional stamp duty as per the guideline value as on the date of registration. 2. The petitioner, after purchasing the above said land from one I.V.Sasi, through a registered sale deed dated 04.09.2008 and after paying the stamp duty as per the guideline values, has become absolute owner of the said property. At the time of preparing the sale deed, in para-3 of the schedule, it was wrongly typed as survey No.128/4C instead of correct survey Nos.128/4 and 128/6. After some time, the mistake was realized. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has got his vendor to rectify the same by executing a rectification deed on 17.11.2009. After rectification, a rectification deed was also presented for registration to the 2nd respondent. But, after receiving the said rectification deed, the 2nd respondent, once again, demanded stamp duty as per the guideline value on 17.11.2009. Since the said stamp duty was not paid, the 2nd respondent refused to return the document for want of the deficit stamp duty as per the guideline value. Aggrieving the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come to know the mistake in the original sale deed that they have wrongly typed as survey no.128/4C, instead of writing correct survey nos.128/4 and 128/6. Since the rectification deed executed is not an independent transaction of sale and there is no element of sale warranting such demand of stamp duty as per the market value as on the date of the registration of the rectification deed, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to register the rectification deed, which is presented only for rectification of the correct survey nos.128/4 and 128/6. On that basis, he prayed for allowing the present writ petition. 4. Opposing the prayer, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that of late, it has become a practice, in an effort to usurp the Government land, to register a deed, as though it is their own land, but after presenting the sale deed, with a view to alienate the Government land, a rectification deed is presented by altering the survey no. mentioned in the sale deed. She further stated that this is one such case, hence, it was prayed to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. The above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the survey nos.128/4 and 128/6 are belonging to the Government. Therefore, the 1st respondent has already recommended for impounding the document presented before the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, no direction is required to be given, which will otherwise cause heavy prejudice on the government, as the petitioner is attempting to get away with the Government land illegally. Therefore, this Court does https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not wish to grant the prayer as made by the petitioner. However, it is left open to the petitioner to workout his remedy in accordance with law, if he is so advised. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar rkm To 1.The District Revenue Officer, Stamps Division, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Kundrathur. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.20712 W.P.No.26531/2010 JSV {CO} TP/12.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/