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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more