2016 (4) TMI 268 - HC - Indian Laws

Property sold in auction - confirmation of sale - whether sale certificate issued in the auction of the immoveable property on the orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal falls within the ambit of compulsory registrable document as per Section 17(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908? - Held that - Sale certificate was issued by the authorized officer, who was neither civil or revenue officer, therefore, the registration of sale certificate was not exempted under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act and thus it requires registration.

Summary

Issues:
1. Registration requirement of a sale certificate issued by the authorized officer under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. Interpretation of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 in relation to the sale certificate issued by the authorized officer.
3. Conflict between judgments regarding the registration exemption of sale certificates issued by authorized officers in public auctions.

Issue 1: Registration Requirement of Sale Certificate:
The petitioner, as an auction purchaser, acquired land and building through an auction conducted by the authorized officer of the State Bank of Patiala. The sale certificate was issued under Rule 9(6) of the 2002 Rules. The petitioner sought mutation of the sale certificate, but the respondents contended that registration was necessary as per Punjab Government instructions. The respondents referred to a subsequent instruction substituting Section 17(4) with Section 89(4) of the Act, emphasizing the need for stamp duty even if the sale certificate is pasted in Bahi No.1.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act:
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in "B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India," emphasizing that the sale becomes absolute upon confirmation by the Court, and the sale certificate serves as evidence of title transfer, not requiring further registration. Additionally, the petitioner cited the decision in "Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh," stating that sale certificates from public auctions by revenue officers do not fall under non-testamentary documents needing registration under Section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

Issue 3: Conflict Between Judgments:
The respondents referenced a Madras High Court Division Bench judgment in "M/s P.M. Associates, Udhagamandalam Vs. IFCI Limited Chennai," where it was held that sale certificates issued by authorized officers in public auctions are not exempt from registration under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Act. The Division Bench concluded that the authorized officer did not qualify as a civil or revenue officer, necessitating registration of the sale certificate. The High Court, considering the conflicting judgments, dismissed the writ petition, citing the applicability of the Madras High Court's decision to the present case.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the registration requirement for the sale certificate issued by the authorized officer, aligning with the Madras High Court's interpretation. The judgment emphasized the need for stamp duty even if the sale certificate is pasted in Bahi No.1, in accordance with the revised instruction substituting Section 17(4) with Section 89(4) of the Act.