Trinity Properties, Vs The Inspector General of Registration,

Trinity Properties, vs The Inspector General of Registration,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1591253

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1591253
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Decided On: Mar 30, 2026
Case Number: WP(MD)/7216/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Trinity Properties,

Respondent

The Inspector General of Registration,

Excerpt

.....audit party had conducted an audit and intimated about the aforesaid shortcomings. in view thereof, the sub registrar had straight away issued a notice to the petitioner. in this regard,it can be seen that under section 47-a(3) of the indian stamp act, 1899, it is only the collector or the other authorized authority, either suo motu or otherwise within a period of five years from the date of registration, can issue notice and decide the issue in the manner known to law. the sub- registrar himself cannot directly issue a demand notice. in this regard the issue has since been decided by this court in w.p(md)no.1689 of 2026 etc, batch,(sri sakthi developers and constructions v. the inspector general of registration, ig registration, 100, santhome high road, pattinampakkam, chennai), where the sub registrar was ultimately directed to inform the competent authority to initiate proceedings under section 47-a of the act.3.in view thereof, this repetition is ordered on the following terms: (i)the impugned demand notice dated 22.09.2025 shall stand set aside and it will be opened for the sub-registrar to request the competent authority to initiate proceedings in the manner known to law. (ii)no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.ncc:yes/nod.bharatha chakravarthy, j.ns to pettai, tirunelveli-627 004. and

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 30.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and Trinity Properties Rep by its Proprietor Karthik.S, Door No.404, Aiswaryam Pride Apartments Siva Sakthi Nagar, Coddissia Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004. ... Petitioner Vs.
Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 004. ...Respondents Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice dated 22.09.2025 in Notince No.81/2025 issued by the fifth respondent, quash the same, direct the 5th respondent to remove the remarks made in the encumbrance Register regarding the deficit stamp duty as registration charges with respect to the property of the petitioner ad measuring 2 acres and 37 cents of land comprised in the Survey No.4/2 in T.S.No.159/2, 3 acres and 71 cents of land in Survey No.8 in T.S.No.157 totalling of 6 acres and 08 cents. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Sailendrababu For Respondents :Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notice dated 22.09.2025.

2.By the said notice, the Sub-Registrar, the fifth respondent herein had demanded shortage in stamp duty of a sum of Rs.1,00,62,330/- and a shortage in registration charges of a sum of Rs.28,74,950/- from the petitioner. It is seen that the audit party had conducted an audit and intimated about the aforesaid shortcomings. In view thereof, the Sub Registrar had straight away issued a notice to the petitioner. In this regard,

it can be seen that under section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it is only the Collector or the other authorized authority, either Suo motu or otherwise within a period of five years from the date of registration, can issue notice and decide the issue in the manner known to law. The Sub- Registrar himself cannot directly issue a demand notice. In this regard the issue has since been decided by this Court in W.P(MD)No.1689 of 2026 etc, batch,(Sri Sakthi Developers and Constructions V. The Inspector General of Registration, IG Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai), where the Sub Registrar was ultimately directed to inform the competent authority to initiate proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act.

3.In view thereof, this repetition is ordered on the following terms: (i)the impugned demand notice dated 22.09.2025 shall stand set aside and it will be opened for the Sub-Registrar to request the competent authority to initiate proceedings in the manner known to law. (ii)No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

NCC:Yes/No

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Ns To Pettai, Tirunelveli-627 004. and

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Trinity Properties, vs The Inspector General of Registration, Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy