High Court · 2025
Case Details
WA No. 2505 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-08-2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALW.A No. 2505 of 2025and W.M.P.No.19464 of 20251.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Cum Inspector General Of RegistrationSanthome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 0042.The District RegistrarRegistration Department, Chengalpet.3.The Joint II Sub-registrarOffice of Sub Registrar, Chengalpet..AppellantsVs1.K. KesavanS/o. Late K.K. Krishnaswamy, Res. at 1-2-47/1 and 2, Flat No.203, T.N.R. Vaishnavi, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 029.2.K.VaishnaviD/O.Kesavan, 1-2-47/ 1 and 2, Flat No.203, T.N.R.Vaishnavi, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh-500 029.3.Mahindra Residential Developers Ltda company registered under the companies Act,having office at Administrative Block,Central Avenue,Mahindra World City,Natham Sub (PO),Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram - 603004...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 3.7.2024 passed in WP No.20950 of 2018.For Appellants :Mr.Stalin AbhimanyuAdditional Government PleaderPage 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025For Respondents :Ms.J.Swetha for M/s.K. Govi Ganesan - for RR 1 and 2Mr.Surya Teja SS Nalla - For R3JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Suresh Kumar J.) This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 03.07.2024 made in W.P.No.20950 of 2018. 2. Heard Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant, Ms.J.Swetha for M/s.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Surya Teja, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. The issue raised in this lis is as to whether stamp duty is payable for the lease executed in respect of a residential unit in a non-processing area of Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as SEZ) executed by the Developer / Co-Developer in view of the amendment having been made in Indian Stamp Act by virtue of Section 57 of the SEZ Act. 4. The third respondent is a duly approved SEZ Co-Developer vide Letter of Approval dated 25.04.2008 issued by the Board of Approval, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section), Government of India for developing residential units in non-processing area of the Special Economic Zone, Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025Mahindra World City, Chengalpet. Out of those residential apartments, the respondents 1 and 2 had entered into a lease agreement to take a 3 BHK type residential unit admeasuring about 1060 sq.ft of carpet area corresponding to 1190 sq.ft of built up area. At the time of registration of the lease deed dated 23.06.2016, objection has been raised by the Registration Department to pay stamp duty in full. Due to urgency, under protest the stamp duty has been paid to the extent of Rs.4,18,918/- with an express undertaking that they would be entitled to seek refund of stamp duty from the department. Subsequently, a request had been made to refund the excess stamp duty, as such huge stamp duty ought not to have been received from the persons who were given leasehold rights in view of the amendments made in Indian Stamp Act especially under Section 57 of the SEZ Act. The said representation was not considered. Therefore, a writ petition had been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the registering authority to refund the sum of Rs.4,18,918/- paid towards stamp duty for the lease deed dated 26.02.2016. 5. When the said writ petition came up for consideration before the Writ Court, it was brought to the knowledge of the Writ Court that already similar issue had been considered in W.P.No.211 of 2016 and it was disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2016, where, a view has been taken by the Writ Court that such an excess stamp duty ought not to have been received by the registering authority for the Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025lease deed because of the provisions made by way of amendment as stated supra insofar as the SEZ is concerned. 6. The said order passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.211 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 was assailed in W.A.Nos.1940 and 2058 of 2019, which was also dismissed by this Court confirming the order of the writ Court. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been followed by the learned Judge in the order impugned, whereby the writ petition has been allowed. 7. As against the said order the present writ appeal has been preferred and an attempt has been made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants to assail the order. 8.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent brought to our notice that as against the order passed by the Division Bench dated 22.7.2019 made in W.A.Nos.1940 and 2058 of 2019, a Special Leave Petition with huge delay had been filed by the appellants herein and the said S.L.P.(Diary) No.29664 of 2022 was dismissed at the condone delay stage itself by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2022 and a copy of the same has been produced before us, which reads as follows:Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025" There is an inordinate delay of 1065 days in filing this petition for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. Consequently, the special leave petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay. However, the question of law is kept open."9. In view of the said orders having been passed by the Writ Court as confirmed by the Division Bench, as against which unsuccessful attempt has been made by the appellants herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby at least for the present the issue has been concluded as against the appellant and in favour of the respondents, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Writ Court. Resultantly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.(R.S.K.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.) 11-08-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoKSTPage 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025To1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Cum Inspector General Of RegistrationSanthome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 0042.The District RegistrarRegistration Department, Chengalpet.3.The Joint II Sub-registrarOffice of Sub Registrar, ChengalpetPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDP.DHANABAL, J.KSTWA No. 2505 of 202511-08-2025Page 7 of 7
WA No. 2505 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-08-2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMARANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALW.A No. 2505 of 2025and W.M.P.No.19464 of 20251.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Cum Inspector General Of RegistrationSanthome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 0042.The District RegistrarRegistration Department, Chengalpet.3.The Joint II Sub-registrarOffice of Sub Registrar, Chengalpet..AppellantsVs1.K. KesavanS/o. Late K.K. Krishnaswamy, Res. at 1-2-47/1 and 2, Flat No.203, T.N.R. Vaishnavi, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 029.2.K.VaishnaviD/O.Kesavan, 1-2-47/ 1 and 2, Flat No.203, T.N.R.Vaishnavi, Gagan Mahal Road, Domalguda, Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh-500 029.3.Mahindra Residential Developers Ltda company registered under the companies Act,having office at Administrative Block,Central Avenue,Mahindra World City,Natham Sub (PO),Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram - 603004...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 3.7.2024 passed in WP No.20950 of 2018.For Appellants :Mr.Stalin AbhimanyuAdditional Government PleaderPage 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025For Respondents :Ms.J.Swetha for M/s.K. Govi Ganesan - for RR 1 and 2Mr.Surya Teja SS Nalla - For R3JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Suresh Kumar J.) This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 03.07.2024 made in W.P.No.20950 of 2018. 2. Heard Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant, Ms.J.Swetha for M/s.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Surya Teja, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. The issue raised in this lis is as to whether stamp duty is payable for the lease executed in respect of a residential unit in a non-processing area of Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as SEZ) executed by the Developer / Co-Developer in view of the amendment having been made in Indian Stamp Act by virtue of Section 57 of the SEZ Act. 4. The third respondent is a duly approved SEZ Co-Developer vide Letter of Approval dated 25.04.2008 issued by the Board of Approval, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (SEZ Section), Government of India for developing residential units in non-processing area of the Special Economic Zone, Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025Mahindra World City, Chengalpet. Out of those residential apartments, the respondents 1 and 2 had entered into a lease agreement to take a 3 BHK type residential unit admeasuring about 1060 sq.ft of carpet area corresponding to 1190 sq.ft of built up area. At the time of registration of the lease deed dated 23.06.2016, objection has been raised by the Registration Department to pay stamp duty in full. Due to urgency, under protest the stamp duty has been paid to the extent of Rs.4,18,918/- with an express undertaking that they would be entitled to seek refund of stamp duty from the department. Subsequently, a request had been made to refund the excess stamp duty, as such huge stamp duty ought not to have been received from the persons who were given leasehold rights in view of the amendments made in Indian Stamp Act especially under Section 57 of the SEZ Act. The said representation was not considered. Therefore, a writ petition had been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus directing the registering authority to refund the sum of Rs.4,18,918/- paid towards stamp duty for the lease deed dated 26.02.2016. 5. When the said writ petition came up for consideration before the Writ Court, it was brought to the knowledge of the Writ Court that already similar issue had been considered in W.P.No.211 of 2016 and it was disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2016, where, a view has been taken by the Writ Court that such an excess stamp duty ought not to have been received by the registering authority for the Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025lease deed because of the provisions made by way of amendment as stated supra insofar as the SEZ is concerned. 6. The said order passed in the writ petition in W.P.No.211 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 was assailed in W.A.Nos.1940 and 2058 of 2019, which was also dismissed by this Court confirming the order of the writ Court. The said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been followed by the learned Judge in the order impugned, whereby the writ petition has been allowed. 7. As against the said order the present writ appeal has been preferred and an attempt has been made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants to assail the order. 8.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent brought to our notice that as against the order passed by the Division Bench dated 22.7.2019 made in W.A.Nos.1940 and 2058 of 2019, a Special Leave Petition with huge delay had been filed by the appellants herein and the said S.L.P.(Diary) No.29664 of 2022 was dismissed at the condone delay stage itself by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.11.2022 and a copy of the same has been produced before us, which reads as follows:Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025" There is an inordinate delay of 1065 days in filing this petition for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. Consequently, the special leave petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay. However, the question of law is kept open."9. In view of the said orders having been passed by the Writ Court as confirmed by the Division Bench, as against which unsuccessful attempt has been made by the appellants herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby at least for the present the issue has been concluded as against the appellant and in favour of the respondents, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Writ Court. Resultantly, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.(R.S.K.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.) 11-08-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoKSTPage 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025To1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Cum Inspector General Of RegistrationSanthome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 0042.The District RegistrarRegistration Department, Chengalpet.3.The Joint II Sub-registrarOffice of Sub Registrar, ChengalpetPage 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2505 of 2025R.SURESH KUMAR, J.ANDP.DHANABAL, J.KSTWA No. 2505 of 202511-08-2025Page 7 of 7