Rajaram Food Products India Ltd. Vs. Joint District Registrar (Class-1) and Collector of Stamps, Nashik and Ors. - Thus, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act applies in the facts of the present case in favour of the petitioner. The liquidator conducting sale by way of public auction under the provisions of the IBC and on the orders of the NCLT, certainly qualifies to be an officer covered under the said provision i.e. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act.

 HC Bombay (2026.07.14) in  Rajaram Food Products India Ltd. Vs. Joint District Registrar (Class-1) and Collector of Stamps, Nashik and Ors.  [(2026) ibclaw.in 4001 HC, Writ Petition No. 3018 of 2026] held that;

• Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act squarely applies. Therefore, the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra) applies in favour of the petitioner, so long as only a copy of the said sale certificate issued to the petitioner, is to be entered in Book No.1, as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

• Thus, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act applies in the facts of the present case in favour of the petitioner. The liquidator conducting sale by way of public auction under the provisions of the IBC and on the orders of the NCLT, certainly qualifies to be an officer covered under the said provision i.e. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act.

Excerpts of the Order; 

The petitioner is an auction purchaser, aggrieved by an order dated 16.02.2026 passed by respondent No.1 (the said order), whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay stamp duty on the sale certificate issued in its favour in pursuance of an auction sale. According to the petitioner, on a proper reading of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Act) and the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Stamp Act), along with judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court, the respondent No.1 has erred in insisting upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the sale certificate, even when the said certificate is only to be entered in Book No.1, as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

# 2. A corporate debtor M/s. Gonglu Agro Pvt. Ltd. underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). But, the CIRP did not result in a successful resolution plan and accordingly, by an order dated 05.01.2024, the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai (NCLT) directed liquidation of the said corporate debtor. Respondent No.5 was appointed as liquidator on the corporate debtor for sale of its assets. An e-auction was held on 30.12.2024 with regard to the specific immovable property of the corporate debtor and in the auction, the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder. Consequently, upon the petitioner depositing the entire consideration, a sale certificate dated 30.01.2026 was issued in favour of the petitioner.

# 3. On 03.02.2026, respondent No.5 – liquidator sent an email along with copy of sale certificate to respondent No.1 – Joint District Registrar (Class-1) & Collector of Stamps and respondent No.2 – Sub-Registrar, for necessary action under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 02.02.2026 to the said respondents as well as respondent No.3 – Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, relying upon the judgements of the Supreme Court, to contend that the sale certificate was exempted from compulsory registration and as per statutory requirement under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, it was to be merely entered in Book No.1, with no stamp duty payable thereon.

# 4. On 16.02.2026, respondent No.1 passed the said order, holding that the sale certificate having been issued in pursuance of proceedings conducted under the IBC, attracted payment of stamp duty under Article 16 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. In that light, the representation submitted by the petitioner was filed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Collector of Stamps, Nashik Division, to challenge the said order passed by respondent No.1. But, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, on the ground that the order passed by respondent No.1 did not determine or compute any stamp duty payable.

# 5. In this backdrop, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their affidavit-in-reply, referring to provisions of the Registration Act and Stamp Act, to contend that no interference was warranted in the said order and that the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty on the sale certificate. The writ petition was taken up for hearing.

# 6. Dr. Chandrachud, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said order is erroneous on a plain reading of the provisions of the Registration Act. It was submitted that the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3372, had categorically held that such a sale certificate issued in pursuance of auction sale conducted by an authorized officer, was not compulsorily registrable and that the law required only a copy of the same to be forwarded to the registering authority, further holding that stamp duty was not attracted in such a situation. The said position of law had been consistently followed by this Court in various cases, including in the cases of Vishal Laxman Arkal vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, 2025 SCC Online Bom 4727 and Khush Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.3692 of 2023).

# 7. It was further submitted that in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the first time, reliance was placed on Maharashtra Amendment to the Registration Act, whereby clauses (f), (g) and (h) were added to Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a document tendered in a compilation of documents, showing that by Maharashtra Act No. X of 2012, which received assent of the President on 25.05.2012, the aforesaid amendment had been inserted in Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The respondents relied upon clause (g) of sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the Registration Act, to contend that since the sale certificate had been issued by an officer or competent authority under a recovery Act, stamp duty was necessarily payable.

# 8. In order to deal with the aforesaid specific contention raised on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Glas Trust Company LLC vs. Byju Raveendran and others, (2025) 3 SCC 625, Tottempudi Salalith vs. State Bank of India and others, (2024) 1 SCC 24 and Hindustan Construction Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others, (2020) 17 SCC 324. It was submitted that in the said judgements, the Supreme Court had made it abundantly clear that IBC is not a debt recovery legislation, but it has been enacted for the purpose of revival of a company that has fallen in debt.

# 9. It was submitted that even otherwise, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act exempted a sale certificate issued to a purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer. It was submitted that in the present case, the liquidator acting under the provisions of the IBC and upon orders passed by the NCLT, qualifies as a Civil officer and therefore, exemption from payment of stamp duty is evident from a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be allowed.

# 10. On the other hand, Mr. Chandurkar, learned Addl. GP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that as per Section 2(g)(iv) of the Stamp Act, the sale certificate signified a conveyance by means of an instrument, as defined in Section 2(l) thereof. Consequently, as per Section 3 of the Stamp Act read with Article 16 of Schedule I thereof, stamp duty was leviable at the rate specified therein. It was submitted that clause (g) of sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the Registration Act, concerning Maharashtra Amendment, clearly covers the position in favour of the said respondents and therefore, no error can be attributed to the said order.

# 11. It was submitted that when these provisions are appreciated in the correct perspective, the judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court, relied upon by the petitioner, cannot come to its aid, thereby demonstrating that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

# 12. We have considered the rival submissions. In the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 17 of the Registration Act pertains to documents of which registration is compulsory. Sub-section (1) enumerates the documents that are compulsorily required to be registered and sub-section (2) gives the details of documents that are exempted from such compulsory registration. Section 89 of the Registration Act pertains to those orders, certificates and instruments, copies of which are only required to be sent to the registering officers and filed.

# 13. Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, as per the Maharashtra Amendment No.X of 2012, copy of which is tendered in a compilation of documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89 thereof, read as follows:

• ‘17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.—

• (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force namely:-

• xxx xxx xxx

• (g) sale certificate issued by any competent officer or authority under any recovery Act;’

• ‘(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies-

• xxx xxx xxx

• (xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.’

• ‘89. Copies of certain orders, certificates and instruments to be sent to registering officers and filed.—

• (1) Every officer granting a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (19 of 1883), shall send a copy of his order to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the land to be improved or of the land to be granted as collateral security, is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1.

• (2) Every Court granting a certificate of sale of immovable property under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), shall send a copy of such certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in such certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1.

• (3) Every officer granting a loan under the Agriculturists’ Loans Act, 1884 (12 of 1884), shall send a copy of any instrument whereby immovable property is mortgaged for the purpose of securing the repayment of the loan, and, if any such property is mortgaged for the same purpose in the order granting the loan, a copy also or that order, to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property so mortgaged is situate, and such registering officer shall file the copy or copies as the case may be, in his Book No. 1.

• (4) Every Revenue Officer granting a certificate of sale to the purchaser of immovable property sold by public auction shall send a copy of the certificate to the registering officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the immovable property comprised in the certificate is situate, and such officer shall file the copy in his Book No. 1.’

# 14. Section 2(g) of the Stamp Act states that the conveyance includes conveyance on sale, every instrument, every decree or order of a Civil Court and every order, inter alia, made by the NCLT under specific provisions of the Companies Act and the IBC by which property whether movable or immovable, is transferred to any person. Section 2(l) of the Stamp Act defines instrument as including every document by which any right or liability is created, transferred, limited, extinguished, etc. or purports to do so. Section 3 of the Stamp Act pertains to an instrument chargeable with duty and it specifically refers to instruments mentioned in Schedule I. Article 16 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act refers to a certificate of sale issued in the context of the property sold in a public auction by Civil or Revenue court, with the extent of stamp duty payable thereon.

# 15. In the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, reference is made only to Article 16 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act and it is held that stamp duty is payable on sale certificate issued to the petitioner. It is significant to note that in the impugned order, there is no reference to Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, introduced by way of Maharashtra Amendment. In other words, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have sought to defend and justify the impugned order in their affidavit on reasons and grounds not found in the impugned order itself. As per settled law, the impugned order could be defended only on the reasons found therein.

# 16. Nonetheless, this Court has considered the rival submissions made in that regard. Since the petitioner heavily relies upon judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court in the context of the question of liability to pay stamp duty on a sale certificate only sought to be entered in Book No.1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, it would be appropriate to refer to the said judgements.

# 17. In the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra), the Supreme Court considered the earlier judgements and found that it was already a settled position of law that a sale certificate does not require registration under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act and that it also does not attract stamp duty. A copy of the sale certificate is simply required to be entered in Book No.1, as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, so long as the sale certificate remains as it is. It was further held in the said judgement that only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose, that stamp duty would be payable.

# 18. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra), reads as follows:

• ‘13. The short question that falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether it is mandatory for the successful auction purchaser to deposit the stamp duty for the sale certificate to be issued to it in view of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act.

• 14. This Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Pramod Kumar Gupta, (1991) 1 SCC 633 : AIR 1991 SC 401, after examining the relevant provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed that the title to the property put on auction sale passes under the law when the sale is held. The owners and certain other interested persons are afforded opportunity under the CPC to assail the sale and make a prayer for setting aside the sale on certain enumerated grounds. However, once such objections are disposed of without disturbing the sale, the sale stands confirmed under Order XXI Rule 92 of the CPC. Thereafter, the sale certificate is issued under Order XXI Rule 94. The Court observed that this chronology of events made it clear that the transfer becomes final when an Order under Rule 92 of Order XXI is made and the issuance of a sale certificate under Rule 94 is only a formal declaration of the effect of such confirmation. Such issuance of certificate does not create or extinguish any title and thus would not attract any stamp duty which is applicable qua an instrument of sale of immovable property.

• 15. In Smt. Shanti Devi L. Singh v. Tax Recovery Officer, (1990) 3 SCC 605 : AIR 1991 SC 1880, this Court observed that since the certificate of sale is not a compulsorily registrable document in lieu of Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, the transfer of title in favour of the auction purchaser would not be vitiated on account of non-registration of the sale certificate.

• 16. In B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India, (2007) 5 SCC 745, this Court observed that when a property is sold by public auction in pursuance of an order of the court and the bid is accepted and the sale is confirmed by the court in favour of the purchaser, the sale becomes absolute and the title vests in the purchaser. A sale certificate is issued to the purchaser only when the sale becomes absolute. The sale certificate is merely the evidence of such title. It is well settled that when an auction-purchaser derives title on confirmation of sale in his favour, and a sale certificate is issued evidencing such sale and title, no further deed of transfer from the court is contemplated or required. Although in the said case, the sale certificate was registered yet this Court proceeded to observe that a sale certificate issued by a court or an officer authorized by the court, does not require registration. Section 17(2) (xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a certificate of sale granted to any purchaser of any property sold by a public auction by a civil or revenue officer does not fall under the category of non-testamentary documents which require registration under sub-section (b) and (c) of Section 17(1) of the said Act.

• 17. The position of law is thus settled that a sale certificate issued to the purchaser in pursuance of the confirmation of an auction sale is merely evidence of such title and does not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. It is not the issuance of the sale certificate which transfers the title in favour of the auction purchaser. The title is transferred upon successful completion of the sale and its confirmation by the competent authority after all the objections against the sale have been disposed of.

• 18. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Esjaypee Impex Private Limited v. The Asst. General Manager and Authorized Officer Canara Bank, (2021) 11 SCC 537 observed that the mandate of law that flows from a combined reading of Sections 17(2)(xii) and 89(4) of the Registration Act respectively is that the auction purchaser is entitled to receive the original sale certificate and a copy of the same is required to be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of filing in Book 1 as per the Registration Act.

• 19. In Inspector General of Registration v. G. Madhurambal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2079, a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed that the consistent position of law is that a certificate of sale cannot be regarded as a conveyance subject to stamp duty. The Court further observed that once a direction is issued for the duly validated certificate to be issued to the auction purchaser with a copy forwarded to the registering authorities to be filed in Book I as per Section 89 of the Registration Act, it has the same effect as registration and requirement of any further action is obviated.

• 20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.’

# 19. The said judgement was followed by this Court in the case of Vishal Laxman Arkal vs. Inspector General of Registration and others (supra), even when the case arose from auction sale conducted under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act). The said position was further followed by this Court in the case of Khush Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). It is significant to note that when the said judgements were delivered by a Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgement in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra), the respondent – State authorities made no reference to Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act (Maharashtra Amendment). As noted hereinabove, even in the impugned order, the respondent No.1 did not refer to and rely upon the same.

# 20. It is in this backdrop that the true purport of Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act (Maharashtra Amendment) will have to be appreciated, in the light of position of law clarified by the Supreme Court. A perusal of the same shows that it refers to a sale certificate issued by any competent authority or officer under any recovery Act. It is to be noted that although this clause pertains to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act pertaining to the documents that are compulsorily registrable, there is no reference to ‘auction sale’ or ‘public auction’. As opposed to this, in clause (xii) of subsection (2) of Section 17, which pertains to documents exempted from registration, there is a specific reference to public auction and it is specified therein that any certificate of sale granted to a purchaser of any property sold by ‘public auction’ by a Civil or Revenue officer, is exempted from registration.

3 21. If this distinction is taken into consideration and applied to the facts of the present case, we find that since the sale certificate in the present case was issued in favour of the petitioner, with regard to the subject property sold by public auction by the liquidator under the provisions of the IBC, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act squarely applies. Therefore, the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra) applies in favour of the petitioner, so long as only a copy of the said sale certificate issued to the petitioner, is to be entered in Book No.1, as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.

# 22. The position of law clarified in paragraph No.20 of the abovequoted portion of judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra), clearly applies in favour of petitioner. Therefore, the sale certificate issued in favour of petitioner is not compulsorily registrable. Only a copy of the same is required to be entered in Book No.1, as per Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. So long as the sale certificate remains as it is with the petitioner, it is neither required to be registered, nor does it attract stamp duty. It is only when the petitioner seeks to use the sale certificate for some other purpose, that the requirement of payment of stamp duty would arise.

# 23. In this context, when the prayer clauses of the present writ petition are perused, it is found that apart from seeking to set aside the said order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to accept the sale certificate issued by the liquidator and to file the same in Book No.1, as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, without insisting upon payment of stamp duty or registration fee. We find that the said reliefs claimed in the present petition, are in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this context.

# 24. As far as Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act (Maharashtra Amendment) is concerned, a perusal of the said provision shows that it pertains to a sale certificate issued by a competent officer or authority under any ‘recovery Act’. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the IBC cannot be categorized as a recovery Act, in the light of the objects and reasons for which it was enacted. In the cases of Glas Trust Company LLC vs. Byju Raveendran and others (supra); Tottempudi Salalith vs. State Bank of India and others (supra) and Hindustan Construction Company Limited and another vs. Union of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated the position of law with regard to the nature and purpose of enactment of IBC, relying upon earlier judgement in the case of Swiss Ribbons Private Limited and another vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 4 SCC 17 and other judgements, to hold that IBC is not meant to be a recovery mechanism and that it is not a debt recovery legislation. On the other hand, it has been repeatedly held that it is a mechanism for revival of a company fallen in debt. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in relying upon Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, to justify the impugned order.

# 25. Even otherwise, as noted hereinabove, the said provision does not refer to a sale certificate issued in pursuance of sale of a property by public auction, while the exemption clause i.e. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act specifically pertains to such a sale certificate issued to a purchaser of property sold by public auction. Thus, Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act applies in the facts of the present case in favour of the petitioner. The liquidator conducting sale by way of public auction under the provisions of the IBC and on the orders of the NCLT, certainly qualifies to be an officer covered under the said provision i.e. Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act.

# 26. Thus, viewed from any angle, we find that respondent No.1 could not have passed the impugned order, insisting upon payment of stamp duty on the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were not dealt with and respondent No.1 was not justified in ignoring the aforesaid position of law by simply relying upon Article 16 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act.

# 27. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

# 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c), which read as follows:

• ‘a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction calling for the records and proceedings leading to the issuance of the Impugned Order/Letter No.772/2026 dated 16.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1, and after examining the legality and validity thereof, be pleased to QUASH and SET ASIDE the same as being illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

• b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith accept the Sale Certificate dated 30.01.2026 issued by the Liquidator (Respondent No. 5) and file the same in Book No. 1 as mandated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908, without insisting on the payment of stamp duty or registration fees;

• c. Declare that the Sale Certificate dated 30.01.2026 issued by the Liquidator under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is not a compulsorily registrable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and is exempt from the payment of stamp duty when filed under Section 89(4) of the said Act;’

# 29. In accordance with the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in paragraph No.20 of the said judgement in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings P. Ltd. and others (supra), exemption from payment of stamp duty on the sale certificate issued to the petitioner, will continue to apply, so long as the same remains as it is. It is only when the petitioner uses it for some other purpose, that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, will arise.

# 30. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

---------------------------------------------------------

Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni and Ors. Vs. The State of AP and Ors. - The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price.

  HC Andhra Pradesh (2025.01.28) in Mallikarjuna Kondapaneni and Ors. Vs. The State of AP and Ors. [Writ Petition No: 298/2025] held that.-  

• Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the „march of law‟ and „follow the binding precedent‟ only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again.

• In matters where properties are brought for sale under various circumstances like an attached property being sold for recovery of a debt in a Money Suit, or properties of the defaulting borrowers are brought for sale by the respective lending institutions or the properties brought for sale for recovery of statutory taxes/statutory dues, the general rules and procedures with regard to Stamp Duty and Registration Fee do not apply.

• The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price.

• The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the territory of India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

• The Official Respondent No.4 is directed to register the Sale Certificate of the Writ Petitioners in accordance with law by fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the value shown in the Sale Certificate i.e., Rs.2,17,50,000/-.

Excerpts of the Order;

Heard Sri P. Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government for Stamps & Registration appearing for all the Respondents

# 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

"It is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4threspondent, Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO, in directing the petitioners to pay the stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property instead of the Value of the Sale Certificate/Auction Value of Rs.2,17,50,000/- as the same is contrary to law, illegal, arbitrary and violative of law laid down by this Hon‟ble Court and seeking a consequential direction to the 4threspondent Sub-Registrar, Tirupathi RO to receive, register and release the Sale Certificate/Deed of Sale executed by the Canara Bank in favour of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Shop Nos.001 Part, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 313A, 314 and 501 of Central Park Commercial Complex together with undivided share of land admeasuring 247.46 Sq Yards along with 35% of Parking situated in Tirupathi Town, Municipal 13thward, Reddy and Reddy Colony area, No.29 Village Accounts, Tirupathi Urban Mandal,Tiruapthi Sub-District, Sri Balaji Registration District [hereinafter referred to as the „subject property], without insisting payment of stamp duty (@6.5%) and registration fee (@1%) on market value of the property and by accepting the stamp duty on the Value of the Sale Certificate which is Rs.2,17,50,000/- and to pass such other and further orders."

# 3. The facts, as stated in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, are that the Specialized Asset Recovery and Management Branch of Canara Bank, Tirupati initiated the Proceedings under the provisions of Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of the dues from the borrower and issued e-Auction Notice for the sale of subject property on 05.12.2024 indicating that the e-Auction would be conducted on 23.12.2024; that on the scheduled date of e-Auction i.e., on 23.12.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have participated and were declared as successful bidders for an amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- (upset price was fixed as Rs.2,17,00,000/-); that the Writ Petitioners have paid the EMD as well as 25% of the sale amount of a sum of Rs.54,37,500/- on the same date; that the Writ Petitioners have also complied with all the other conditions and have thereafter paid the entire auction amount to Canara Bank, Tirupati and have obtained the Sale Certificate on 30.12.2024; that the Writ Petitioners approached the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati (Respondent No.4) for registration of the Sale Certificate; whereas, the Respondent No.4 directed the Writ Petitioners to pay the stamp duty and registration fee on the market value of the subject property; that the Respondent No.4 had stated that the registration will not be permissible unless the stamp duty and the registration fee is paid on the market value of the property and not on the auction value; that the Respondent No.4 had also issued Market Value Certificate of the subject property indicating that the total value of the subject property is Rs.3,65,76,500/- (Three crores sixty five lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred).

# 4. Having been aggrieved of the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 to the effect that the registration would be permitted only if the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is paid on the market value as indicated in the Market Value Certificate (i.e., ₹ 3,65,76,500/-) but not as per the Sale Certificate issued by the Canara Bank (i.e., on ₹ 2,17,50,000/-), the present Writ Petition is filed.

# 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that though the law is well settled on this issue, it is legally untenable on the part of the Respondent No.4 to insist for the payment of stamp duty and registration fee on the market value instead of the amount fetched in the auction sale.

# 6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors.Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Anr. : 2022 SCC Online AP 3328.

6(a). A Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court was once again compelled to deal with the batch of Writ Petitions involving the very same issue in Atkuri Venkata Krishna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (W.P.No.24898 of 2024 and batch). The Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court in its Final Order dated 06.12.2024 had also referred to a recent Memo issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh thereby, giving a directive to all the Officers in the Department of Registration to comply with the law declared by this Hon‟ble Court. The relevant portion of this Memo No.REV08-12022/11/2023-CCRA SEC-IGRS dated 29.04.2024 is usefully extracted hereunder:

• "2. After careful examination of the proposals of the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh in the reference cited and in compliance to the orders passed by the Hon‟ble High Court, the Government hereby directed that the auction value/value indicated in instruments to be taken into consideration for the proposed pending documents in the reference cited while determining the Deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the sale certificate issued under SARFEASI Act, 2002 instead of market value.

• 3. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly."

# 7. Having regard to the above facts, the following issue arises for determination:

Issues:-

i. In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the market value as fixed by the Registrar?

ii. Whether there is an indispensable constitutional „duty‟ cast upon the executive to follow the law (ratio decidendi) that is declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India?

iii. What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?

Issue No.1:

In cases where property is purchased in an auction sale in recovery proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee is payable on the value fetched in the auction sale or on the market value as fixed by the Registrar?

# 8. This Court has noticed that even though the law is well settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the year 2009 itself in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 in para Nos.16 to 18, the cases involving similar facts and circumstances, are being brought before this Court almost on a regular basis. This Court, by citing V.N. Devadoss's case, as a binding precedent, had already decided several similar cases. A learned Single Judge has already decided cases on similar facts by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's case. Even when the State has preferred an Intra-Court Appeal, a Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court has also confirmed the Order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the reliance was placed on the precedent rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law rendered/declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court would bind all the Subordinate Courts and the Executive across the Country. It would be the incumbent duty on the part of the Executive to keep track of the „march of law‟ and „follow the binding precedent‟ only to ensure that a citizen shall not be compelled to knock at the doors of the Writ Court once again. Unfortunately, the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, have been constantly violating this principle of stare decisis. This doctrine mandates everyone including the subordinate courts and the executive to follow the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as a binding precedent without having to apply their discretion once again. Once the law is settled by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, it would be the incumbent duty, not only on the Subordinate Courts, but also the Executive across the country to scrupulously follow the said dictum in all cases of similar nature.

# 9. Article 300A is a constitutional right that guarantees to its citizens the right to property. Sale and purchase of immovable and movable properties by the citizens of the Country is a continuous process. In matters where properties are brought for sale under various circumstances like an attached property being sold for recovery of a debt in a Money Suit, or properties of the defaulting borrowers are brought for sale by the respective lending institutions or the properties brought for sale for recovery of statutory taxes/statutory dues, the general rules and procedures with regard to Stamp Duty and Registration Fee do not apply.

# 10. In Shanti Devi L Singh Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Ors :(1990) 3 SCC 605, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had explained the difference between the process of registration and process of filing documents like Sale Certificate issued by Tax Recovery Officers for the purchase of immovable property sold in a Court auction. It is laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that a property which is purchased in a Court auction, is not compulsorily registrable and that such Sale Certificate shall merely be filed in Book No.1 in the Registrar‟s Office.

# 11. In V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438, while dealing specifically with regard to the issue which is framed in the present case i.e., whether the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee should be paid on market value or on the value fetched on the property in an auction sale, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has clearly and firmly laid down the law to the effect that the Registration Authorities cannot demand payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on market value. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has explained the difference between market value and amount fetched in an auction and also the process involved in bringing a property for auction where the lending institution would obtain Market Value Certificate before notifying the property for auction. Para Nos.16 to 18 of the said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court are usefully extracted hereunder:

• "16. Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.

• 17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "the TP Act"). Although the Act has not included the definition of sale, Section 2(10) of the Act defines "conveyance" as including a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any civil court by which property whether immovable or movable or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I or Schedule 1-A, as the case may be.

• 18. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that Section 47-A has any application because there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any undervaluation. That being so, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope for exercising power under Section 47-A of the Act as there is no basis for even entertaining a belief that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty."

# 12. As the law has been clearly laid down in V.N. Devadoss's case (supra), Single Benches of this Court, following the said case as a precedent, have consistently allowed several Writ Petitions brought by the successful auction purchasers. The Intra-Court Appeals filed by the State were dismissed thereby confirming the Orders of the Single Benches since the said Orders were passed by placing reliance on V.N. Devadoss's case. There are already several reported Judgments on the very same issue in the law journals.

# 13. This discussion is being made by this Court out of sheer concern that such well settled legal issues are again being raked-up by the Executive, again and again compelling the citizens to approach this Court. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Ors. Vs. Marvel Financial Services Ltd., rep. by its Director Mr. P. Srinivas Chowdary and Anr. : 2022 SCC Online AP 3328, the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court, having discussed elaborately, had upheld the Order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing the Registration Authorities to collect the Stamp Duty and Registration Fee only on the value that is fetched in the auction sale with a clear caveat that the Official Respondents cannot charge Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the market value.

14. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as recently as in the year 2024, in State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Ferrous Alloy Forgings Private Limited and Ors :2024 SCC Online SC 3372,in para 20 of the said Judgment, has held as under:

• "20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise."

# 15. After having considered the judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court, the Issue No.1 is answered by this Court holding that the Respondent Authorities (Department of Registration and Stamps) shall collect Stamp Duty and Court Fee on the value of the property as mentioned in the Sale Certificate in the present case.

Issue No.2:

Whether there is an indispensable constitutional „duty‟ cast upon the executive to follow the law (ratio decidendi) that is declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India?

# 16. The Article 141 of Constitution of India reads as under:

• "141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts - The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India."

# 17. The Article 144 of Constitution of India reads as under:

• "Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court - All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court."

# 18. The Article 141 r/w 144 would lead to a categorical conclusion that the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court binds not only the Courts within the territory of India but would also bind all the authorities, civil and judicial in the territory of India and all the authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. This goes without saying that the law declared by the Supreme Court, which is final by its very nature, binds the executive and the executive cannot take a view different from the law that is laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore the law declared by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Ors: (2009) 7 SCC 438 shall be adhered to by the executive namely the Department of Registration in the present case. They cannot insist on the auction purchaser to pay Stamp Duty and Registration Charges on the market value in respect of a property which has been purchased in an auction sale, if such auction is held by the Court or the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer.

# 19. The binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 read with Article 144 of the Constitution of India has been spelt out by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.16 in E.T.Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and Another: (2004) 8 SCC 683, which reads as under:

• "16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court's order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasised that in a democracy the role of the court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check. In the present case, we fail to understand the counter filed by the appellant before the Court. On one hand they say that all the cases of GPF have been processed and on the other hand they are not prepared to revoke the administrative order. This only shows a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court and stick to their stand. This is clear violation of the Court's order and the appellant is guilty of flouting the Court's order."

Issue No.3:

What is the legal consequence if the Executive violates a binding precedent?

# 20. Before parting with this case, having regard to the frequent of recurrence of a situation of the present nature where the executive is frequently demanding payment of Stamp Duty and Registration Fee based on the market value in cases where the property has been purchased in an auction sale held either by the Court or by the Financer under the SARFAESI Act or by a Tax Recovery Officer, this Court has noticed that there is a flood of litigation in respect of the present issues which are involved. This Court is coming across such cases almost on a daily basis. When the law has been clearly laid down, there is a duty cast upon the executive to follow the said law for the reason that if the said law is not followed, it compels the aggrieved party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable. When once the law has attained finality by virtue of its declaration by the Hon‟ble Apex Court under Article 141, the executive shall dutifully abide by such law as per Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The Principle of „stare decisis' is a jurisprudential concept which is founded to ensure avoidance of multiplicity of litigation by compelling everyone to follow the precedent. When the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declares the law, the executive „shall‟ implement the said law without any deviation or dilution or by raising any objection. The executive can only look upon the „precedent‟ which is laid down by the Apex Court which is deemed to have attained finality and simply follow it. Taking a different view would only render misery to the common man compelling him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Writ Court which is plainly avoidable.

# 21. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India: (2012) 1 SCC 273, while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down the inescapable mandamus that is cast upon the executive and as an inescapable duty to comply with the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. In Paragraph No.20 of the said judgment, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:

• "20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice."

22. In State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari : (1961) 1 SCR 728, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the said Judgment held at para 31 as under:

• "34. Before concluding, we consider it proper to draw attention to one aspect of the case. It is of the essence of the rule of law that every authority within the State including the executive Government should consider itself bound by and obey the Law. It is fundamental to the system of polity that India has adopted and which is embodied in the Constitution that the Courts of the land are vested with the powers of interpreting the law and of applying it to the facts of the cases which are properly brought before them. If any party to the proceedings considers that any Court has committed any error, in the understanding of the law or in its application, resort must be had to such review or appeals as the law provides. When once an order has been passed which the Court has jurisdiction to pass, it is the duty of all persons bound by it to obey the order so long as it stands, and it would tend to the subversion of orderly administration and civil Government, if parties could disobey orders with impunity. If such is the position as regard private parties, the duty to obey is all the more imperative in the case of Governmental authorities, otherwise there would be a conflict between one branch of the State polity viz. the executive and another branch -- the Judicial. If disobedience could go unchecked, it would result in orders of Courts ceasing to have any meaning and judicial power itself becoming a mockery. When the State Government obeys a law, or gives effect to an order of a Court passed against it, it is not doing anything which detracts from its dignity, but rather, invests the law and the Courts with the dignity which are their due, which enhances the prestige of the executive Government itself, in a democratic set-up .............................................."

# 23. In Shri Baradakanta Mishra Ex-Commissioner of Endowments Vs. Shri Bhimsen Dixit : 1973 1 SCC 446, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at para 15 of the said Judgment had held as under:

• "15. The conduct of the appellant in not following the previous decision of the High Court is calculated to create confusion in the administration of law. It will undermine respect for law laid down by the High Court and impair the constitutional authority of the High Court. His conduct is therefore comprehended by the principles underlying the law of contempt. The analogy of the inferior court's disobedience to the specific order of a superior court also suggests that his conduct falls within the purview of the law of contempt. Just as the disobedience to a specific order of the Court undermines the authority and dignity of the court in a particular case, similarly the deliberate and mala fide conduct of not following the law laid down in the previous decision undermines the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court. Indeed, while the former conduct has repercussions on an individual case and on a limited number of persons, the latter conduct has a much wider and more disastrous impact. It is calculated not only to undermine the constitutional authority and respect of the High Court, generally, but is also likely to subvert the Rule of Law and engender harassing uncertainty and confusion in the administration of law."

24. In Priya Gupta Vs. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare : 2013 11 SCC 404, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, had the occasion to explain the consequences of willful disobedience of the Orders of the Court by the Executive. Para Nos.12 & 13 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:

• "12. The government departments are no exception to the consequences of wilful disobedience of the orders of the Court. Violation of the orders of the Court would be its disobedience and would invite action in accordance with law. The orders passed by this Court are the law of the land in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No court or tribunal and for that matter any other authority can ignore the law stated by this Court. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and the respect for law would irretrievably suffer. There can be no hesitation in holding that the law declared by the higher court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. This Court also expressed the view that it had become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have a grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty are important hallmarks of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country, as discipline is sine qua non for effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and to abide by the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law. (Ref. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [AIR 1962 SC 1893] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1 :(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 943] .) (SCC p. 57, paras 90-91)

• 13. These very principles have to be strictly adhered to by the executive and instrumentalities of the State. It is expected that none of these institutions should fall out of line with the requirements of the standard of discipline in order to maintain the dignity of institution and ensure proper administration of justice."

# 25. In the above premise, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Official Respondent No.4 is directed to register the Sale Certificate of the Writ Petitioners in accordance with law by fixing Stamp Duty and Registration Fee on the value shown in the Sale Certificate i.e., Rs.2,17,50,000/-. No order as to costs.

Directions:

# 26. Since this Court has been encountering a flood of cases of this nature, this Court is of the view that these instances are occurring on account of ignorance of law by the Officers who are of the rank of Sub-Registrars and Registrars. This anomaly can be cured by enlightening the concerned Officials about the development and „march of law‟ in the relevant subject. It is the opinion of this Court that this requirement can be met by organizing periodical workshops or training sessions to the concerned Officials for keeping them abreast of the changes occurring in the law from time to time.

# 27. For achieving the above objective it would be necessary to firstly formulate a „Legal-Module‟ which incorporates the necessary case-law dealing with the subject of Registration and holding symposiums or workshops or training sessions in any form for all the Officers who are involved in the Registration of Instruments by making them aware of the contents of such module. As the current era is earmarked by the explosion of „Information- Technology‟, the training sessions can be conducted effortlessly through Online classes (by video-conferencing). One can easily avoid wastage of time and resources by conducting Online classes for the Officers, while achieving the desired results effectively and efficiently.

# 28. In order to give effect to the above observations, there shall be a direction to the Principal Secretary, Revenue to prepare a „Legal-Module‟ in consultation with the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh and impart the contents of such „module‟ to all the Officers involved in the Department of Registration in the State in the manner indicated above. There shall be a further direction to prepare a „Legal-Module‟ within four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order. Thereafter, the training sessions shall be conducted.

# 29. Post after eight weeks to enable the Official Respondents to submit a Report as regards the progress in implementing the above directions.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

-------------------------------------------------