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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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