JUDGMENT : A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. The petitioners presented rectification deeds to rectify the Block Number shown in the settlement deeds executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second and third petitioners. Exts.P1 and P2 are the settlement deeds. The rectification is to rectify only the block number shown in the settlement deeds. In the settlement deeds, the Block Number was shown as 6 instead of 5 of the Thrikkakara North Village. There is no change in identity of the property. The registering authority objected the registration of the rectification deed stating that the fair value of Block No.5 is higher than Block No.6 and therefore, the petitioners will have to pay the difference in stamp duty accordingly. 2. In the statement filed by the first respondent, it is stated in paragraph 4 as follows: It is respectfully submitted that when the Block number of the property changes from 6 to 5, the fair value will also be changed and the total consideration amount in the document will be changed to 1,08,30,375/-(out of which the land value is Rs.99,30,375/- and the value of the building is 9,00,000/-). Under these facts and circumstances, when the fair value of the property in the Resurvey Block 5 and 6 on Thrikkakkara North Village with respect to Resurvey No.444/11 are extremely different, the fair value of land in Resurvey No.444/11 of Block No.5 is much higher than that of Block No.6 of Thrikkakkara North Village. Copy of the fair value notification is produced herewith and may be marked as Annexure-R1(a). This respondent considered the Ext.P5 Rectification Deed a fresh conveyance and issued Ext.P7 speaking order dated 26.4.2018 in accordance with law. 3. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18879 of 2015 dated 17.7.2016. The learned Government Pleader particularly pointed out the paragraph 4 in the above judgment, it reads as follows: “However, that is not the direction in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 directs the entire stamp duty to be paid, deeming it to be a fresh registration. This Court is not convinced that there are any new rights created. The boundaries of the property, the extent, the vendor and vendee, the location, all of which are identical in Exts.P1 and P2. The only difference is with respect to the sub-division number. Ext.P3 directs the entire stamp duty to be paid, deeming it to be a fresh registration. This Court is not convinced that there are any new rights created. The boundaries of the property, the extent, the vendor and vendee, the location, all of which are identical in Exts.P1 and P2. The only difference is with respect to the sub-division number. If at all, the property existing in that sub-division has a higher fair value, then definitely the Registration Authority would be entitled the demand the additional duty determined on properties existing in Survey No.420/2, after deducting what has been paid as per Ext.P1.” 4. The question is whether the settlement deed can be registered as rectification deed and if so what is the stamp duty and registration fee thereon. I am of the view that the deeds will have to be treated as rectification deeds as the identity remains one and the same. Therefore, the question arises that whether the petitioners will have to pay the stamp duty and registration fee in accordance with the difference in fair value fixed for the property. 5. The deeds in question are settlement deeds. The settlement deed is covered under the Article 51 of the Kerala Stamp Act. Article 51(a)(1) postulates that the maximum stamp duty payable is Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner had paid the maximum stamp duty at Rs.1,000/-. No doubt, the petitioners would be liable to pay the higher stamp duty based on the fair value, if the original deed was not a settlement deed as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and also in the light of the proposition laid down by this Court in the judgment referred as above. But in the case of a settlement deed, the difference in the fair value will not make any impact as the maximum stamp duty payable is at Rs.1,000/-. 6. Next question arises what is the registration fee payable. The Government fixed the registration fees under Section 78 of the Registration Act in respect of the documents registered under the Registration Act. 6. Next question arises what is the registration fee payable. The Government fixed the registration fees under Section 78 of the Registration Act in respect of the documents registered under the Registration Act. Table of Fees stated in Clause 1(viii) as on the day stands as follows: “The Registration fee for a document of Gift falling under clause (a) of Article 31, for a document of Partition falling under clause (a) of Article 42, for a document of Release falling under clause (a) of Article 48 and for a document of Settlement falling under sub-clause (a) of Clause A of Article 51 in the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959) shall be one percent of the value.” 7. This was an amended provision based on the amendment issued on 18.7.2016. Prior to the amendment, maximum fee can be levied was 1% or Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner had paid Rs.25,000/-. After the amendment, the levy of registration fee is at 1% of the value. Therefore, the point that has to be considered is whether the petitioners should be directed to pay 1% of the value or not. 8. The instrument being a rectification deed, the petitioners need to only pay the stamp duty and the registration fee as on the date of registration of the original deed. In fact, the judgment relied by the learned Government Pleader clearly points out to the proposition of law that if there was a difference in stamp duty/registration fee payable consequent upon the rectification as on the date of the original registration, certainly, such difference can be levied. The parties cannot take the advantage of omissions on their part. This is based on the principle that the parties cannot take the advantage of their own omission to pay proper stamp duty at the time of original deed by subsequently executing a rectification deed. If any instruments bear proper stamp duty and parties had paid correct registration fee at the time of registration, the Registrar cannot demand stamp duty or registration fee based on subsequent amendment while registering a rectification deed. The proper stamp duty and registration fee is determinable with reference to the date of original deeds and not with reference to the date on which rectification deed is executed and registered. In this case, the original settlement deed was executed on 14.7.2016. The proper stamp duty and registration fee is determinable with reference to the date of original deeds and not with reference to the date on which rectification deed is executed and registered. In this case, the original settlement deed was executed on 14.7.2016. After the amendment, the levy of 1%, came into force with effect from 14.12.2016. The rectification deeds would relate back to the date of registration of original deeds and therefore, the stamp duty as well as the registration fee will have to be reckoned with reference to the date of registration and not with reference to the date on which the rectification deed is registered. Therefore, the deeds shall be permitted to be registered on levying the fee applicable for rectification. The impugned order is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. No costs.