DATE: 5/6/2025
M/S.Agni business and management
Services pvt. Ltd …petitioner
Vs.
The sub registrar, pallavaram SRO …respondent
FACTS:
● The company purchased land from M/s. Agni Estates and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. and Mrs.
T.C. Rohini through a validly executed sale deed. The document was presented for
registration on 06.01.2025.
● The petitioner paid stamp duty amounting to ₹7,97,60,600 and registration charges of
₹2,27,88,800, along with other incidental expenses as shown in the receipt. Although the
registration process was completed and the true value in the document was accepted by
the registering authority, the original sale deed was not returned.
● Instead, it was kept pending under Document P. No. 2/2025. When the petitioner
requested the return of the document, the respondent issued Receipt No. 196/2025 dated
11.01.2025, saying that the deed was being withheld due to “composite
value-commercial” reasons and would be released later. The petitioner complied with the
respondent’s demand by paying the full composite value.
● The petitioner has filed a WP specifically in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to complete the process of registration in respect of the sale deed dated
6/01/2025 and release the original sale deed to the petitioner
Petition:
● The petitioner says that when he went to register the property, the Sub-Registrar told him
the guideline value shown was only for apartments, not for commercial buildings.
● But the petitioner argues that the value was officially fixed for that area, so it should be
accepted. He also says the Sub-Registrar should not ask for higher, made-up values.
Earlier, builders used to register two separate documents — one for the land (called
undivided share or UDS) and another for the building. But now, as per new government
rules, only one document is used that includes both land and building value.
● But the registration department is causing confusion by charging three types of rates —
basic, premium, and super premium — which is creating problems. That’s why Deputy
Inspectors General of Registration were given the authority to fix correct guideline
values.
● The petitioner also points out that earlier only land value was considered for registration,
but now charges are taken for both land and building together. He has already paid the
full amount asked by the department, so there is no reason for them to keep the original
sale deed. As per Section 61(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, once registration is done,
the original document should be returned to the person who registered it.
● The petitioner argues that having commercial buildings in residential areas is normal, and
stamp duty should only be based on the fixed value, not any extra assumptions or
demands. The respondent hasn't raised any concerns about undervaluation. Since the
registration process was done correctly according to Sections 56, 58, 60, and 61 of the
Registration Act, the original sale deed should be returned to the relevant person.
M/S. Vishnusurya projects and infra Ltd
…petitioner
Vs.
The sub registrar, Pallavaram SRO
…respondent
FACTS:
● The Registration Department set a value of Rs. 6,500 per sq. ft. for the property.
The petitioner bought the property on January 6, 2025, from M/s. Agni Estates and
Mrs. T.C. Rohini. On January 11, 2025, the petitioner submitted the sale deed for
registration, paying the required stamp duty, registration fees, and other expenses.
● When the petitioner tried to collect the original sale deed on January 21, 2025, they were
told that it was still being processed because of issues with the property’s value. The
petitioner was informed that the value applied only to apartments, not commercial
buildings.
● Finally, on February 24, 2025, the petitioner went to court, asking for the registration to
be completed and for the original sale deed to be returned.
Petition :
● The company purchased a property from M/s. Agni Estates and Foundations Pvt. Ltd. and
Mrs. T.C. Rohini on January 6, 2025. The Registration Department had fixed a composite
value of ₹6,500 per square foot from December 15, 2023.
● Based on this, the petitioner paid stamp duty of ₹5,80,12,500 and registration charges of
₹1,65,75,000. The sale deed was presented for registration and was accepted. A receipt
was issued on January 11, 2025, but the original sale deed was not returned.
● The registration office claimed that the composite rate was only for apartments and not
for commercial properties. The petitioner disagrees with this and says this reason is
wrong and unfair.The petitioner says that they followed all rules and paid the full
composite value as per the official guideline.
● According to Sections 52, 59, 60, and 61(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, once the
registration process is complete, the original document should be returned to the buyer.
Earlier, the practice was to register land and building separately. But now, registration is
done using a single composite value.
● The petitioner also says that the term “apartment” includes commercial properties as
well, not just residential ones. Since the correct value was accepted and no
under-valuation was found, there is no legal reason to hold the document or ask for more
money. The act of withholding the deed, even after full payment, goes against the law and
the Constitution.
● The petitioner is asking the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the registration
office to complete the registration process of the sale deed dated January 6, 2025, and to
release the original sale deed as per Section 61(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
