Skip to main content

No need to pay fees to revenue department for sub-division:HC

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that a buyer of a land need not pay fee again to the revenue authorities for sub-division of immovable property and issue of patta.

A division bench, comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice S.Tamilvanan, held that once the application, along with fee, is collected with the document for registration of immovable property, the registration department should forward the same to the Revenue Department for sub-division survey work and patta issue to the owner (buyer) of the land.

The court was passing orders while closing a petition by Madurai-based Consumer Rights Protection Council Secretary O Paramasivam challenging levy of fees by both Registration and Revenue departments.

The Inspector of Registration had stated that patta transfer application in prescribed form is tendered along with documents presented for registration and forwarded by the sub- registrar to the tehsildar in whose jurisdiction the property was situated. The job of collecting the fee for sub-division survey and issue of patta was entrusted with the Registration Department as per a Government Order issued in 1984.

"This shows that requirement is to pay only one set of fee, but the collecting agency for such fee is now registration office. No second set of fee (demanded now by the revenue department) is required to be paid," the judges said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/no-need-to-pay-fees-to-revenue-department-for-sub-division-hc-115021801215_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more