JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 1st respondent culminating in its order dated 2.6.2015 in proceedings No. 56278/P1/2014 dismissing in part the petitioner's Appeal partly confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.11.2014 bearing No. Na.Ka.No. 5557/2013/B1 levying an additional stamp duty with registration fee on the Sale Certificate dated 06.12.2010 registered as Document No.13073 of 2010 and quash the same and consequently forbear the 1st and 2nd respondents from levying demanding or recovering any additional stamp duty or registration fee in respect of the Sale Certificate dated   6.12.2010 executed by M/s.Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the petitioner which has been registered as Document No.13073 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Hosur and to forthwith release the impounding of the Sale Certificate dated 06.12.2010, executed in favour of the petitioner and registered as Document No.13073 of 2010, before the Sub Registrar, Hosur.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent through proceedings dated 02.06.2015 whereby the order passed by the 2nd respondent through proceedings dated 12.11.2014 was partially confirmed and the petitioner was directed to pay additional stamp duty and registration fee. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent Bank had extended loan facility to M/s. Uma Maheshwari Mills Ltd., and the borrower committed default in repayment of the loan. Hence, the 3rd respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. In the meantime, the above said borrower had committed default with many creditors and hence, a Winding up Petition came to be filed before this Court in C.P.No.173 of 2021. This Court passed an order dated 2.1.2006 and wound up the above said M/s. Uma Maheswari Mills Ltd. 3. The 3rd respondent Bank filed applications in C.A.Nos.1312 and 1453 of 2010 seeking for the permission of this Court to sell the immoveable properties and machineries which were mortgaged by the said mill to the 3rd respondent Bank. This Court, by an order dated 2.9.2010 permitted the 3rd respondent Bank to sell the properties in consultation with the official liquidator. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent Bank published a tender cum auction notice for the sale of the immoveable properties viz. the land and building. 4. This Court, by an order dated 2.9.2010 permitted the 3rd respondent Bank to sell the properties in consultation with the official liquidator. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent Bank published a tender cum auction notice for the sale of the immoveable properties viz. the land and building. 4. The petitioner participated in the auction sale and submitted its bid. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent Bank found the offer made by the petitioner to be the highest and hence,a sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. This sale certificate dated 06.12.2010 was registered before the concerned Sub Registrar office as Document No.13073 of 2010. 5. The document was in the custody of the Sub Registrar, Hosur since there was some dispute raised by third parties and ultimately, this Court passed an order in Company Application Nos.649 and 650 of 2011 and directed the removal of the machineries from the property and to handover vacant possession of the land and building to the petitioner Company. In terms of the said order, the official liquidator handed over the possession of the immovable properties to the petitioner on 3.5.2012 and the machineries that were installed in the property were dismantled and stored in a separate place within the property. 6. The petitioner received a show cause notice from the 2nd respondent dated 29.11.2013, whereby the petitioner was informed that the sale certificate has been impounded since there is deficit stamp duty and registration fee and the petitioner was called upon to give their explanation in this regard. The petitioner gave a detailed reply through their counsel on 22.01.2014 and explained that the total sale consideration was Rs.12.57 Crores and the stamp duty and the registration fee were paid for this total sale consideration and that there was no deficit stamp duty or registration fee payable by the petitioner. 7. The petitioner also found that there were some inadvertent typographical errors that had crept into the sale certificate and hence wanted to register a deed of rectification and the Sub Registrar was not willing to entertain the document. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 and held that the petitioner was liable to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,26,48,496/- and a further sum of Rs.15,81,065/- towards the registration fee, in all amounting to Rs.1,42,29,561/-. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent, without considering any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 and held that the petitioner was liable to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,26,48,496/- and a further sum of Rs.15,81,065/- towards the registration fee, in all amounting to Rs.1,42,29,561/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent partially set aside the finding of the 2nd respondent insofar as the inclusion of E.P.F., dues by way of attachment which was mentioned in the document and it was stated that that the sale of the property is free from this encumbrance. However, the 1st respondent concurred with the finding of the 2nd respondent insofar as imposing additional stamp duty in terms of the value declared under Annexure-1A. Accordingly, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. 9. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has taken a stand that Annexure-1A which was attached with the sale certificate specifically showed the value of the site as Rs. 8,24,69,400/-and at Column -10, the value of the executant excluding land with all other amenities was shown as Rs.12,57,00,000/- and hence, the total value of the property has to be reckoned only as Rs. 20,81,69,400/- and whereas, the petitioner had paid the stamp duty and registration fee for Rs.12,57,00,000/- only. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fees. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit and has taken a stand at paragraph 6 as follows: “6. The sale certificate was presented for registration on 09.12.2010. I learn and believe it to be true that, in order to give more clarity to the property sold, at the request of the purchaser the words "spinning mills" was included in the schedule. The spinning mill referred there to was the building together with its fixtures embedded to earth and did not include any machinery. The Petitioner prepared the sale certificate duly endorsing the same in stamp paper and it was signed and presented for registration by this Respondent. The spinning mill referred there to was the building together with its fixtures embedded to earth and did not include any machinery. The Petitioner prepared the sale certificate duly endorsing the same in stamp paper and it was signed and presented for registration by this Respondent. Now it has come to light that in serial No. 10 of annexure 1-A the value of the property has been mentioned as "Value of the executant excluding land with all other amenities: Rs. 12,57,00,000/-. In column no 3(a) the value of the site is mentioned as Rs.8,24,69,400/-. I respectfully submit that the words "Excluding land" mentioned in serial no 10 is erroneous and an inadvertent error crept into the said annexure 1-A. At the cost of Repetition, the 3rd Respondent submits that the assets sold and covered under the sale certificate dated 06.12.2010 for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,57,00,000/- were the entire land and buildings together with the fixtures embedded to earth but excluding the machineries, stocks, raw materials, etc. more fully described in the schedule under the head "hypothecated movable property" mentioned in the order dated 02.09.2010 in CA No. 1312 & 1453 of 2010 in CP/173/2001.” 11. Heard Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader for R1, R2 and M/s.F.Benjamin George, learned counsel for R3. 12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 13. A careful perusal of the order passed by this Court in the Company Application Nos.1312 and 1453 of 2010, dated 02.09.2010 shows that permission was given to the 3rd respondent Bank to sell only the immoveable properties and insofar as the moveable properties are concerned, the official liquidator was directed to identify the same and file a report before the Court to pass appropriate orders. It was pursuant to this order that the immoveable property (land and building) was brought for auction sale and the petitioner purchased the property. The total sale consideration as could be seen from the sale certificate was fixed at Rs.12.57 Crores and the petitioner had paid the stamp duty and the registration fees for this total value. The document was also registered by Sub Registrar, Hosur as Document No.13073 of 2010. For proper appreciation, Annexure -1A that was enclosed along with the sale certificate is extracted hereunder: 14. The document was also registered by Sub Registrar, Hosur as Document No.13073 of 2010. For proper appreciation, Annexure -1A that was enclosed along with the sale certificate is extracted hereunder: 14. Even after the execution of the sale certificate, the possession of the property was not handed over to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner filed Company Application Nos.649 and 650 of 2011, seeking for dismantling all the machineries that have been installed in the property and to handover vacant possession of the immoveable property. These applications were taken up for hearing by this Court and an order was passed on 30.03.2012. It is clear from the said order that what was sold to the petitioner was only the land and building for a total consideration of Rs. 12.57 Crores. This Court directed the official liquidator to take steps to remove the machineries and store the same in a separate place and handover the vacant possession of the land and building to the petitioner. Accordingly, the possession was handed over to the petitioner on 03.05.2012. 15. Insofar as the moveable properties viz. the machineries, this Court passed a separate order dated 23.7.2013 and permitted the same to be put to auction sale. Accordingly, all the machineries were brought for auction sale by the 3rdrespondent Bank and it was sold in favour of one Abdul Khader through certificate of sale dated 20.11.2013. 16. The original document was retained by the Sub Registrar and it was impounded on the basis of an audit objection whereby a stand was taken to the effect that the petitioner did not pay the stamp duty and the registration fees for the entire value as mentioned in the sale certificate. Two grounds were put against the petitioner and the first ground was that there was a mention about E.P.F dues by way of attachment to the extent of Rs.7,56,36,781/- and it was shown under the heading ‘List of encumbrances’. According to the 2nd respondent, this encumbrance was settled by the petitioner and hence, this amount should be added to the total sale consideration. The second ground that was put against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not pay the stamp duty and registration fees for the total value shown in Annexure-1A. 17. According to the 2nd respondent, this encumbrance was settled by the petitioner and hence, this amount should be added to the total sale consideration. The second ground that was put against the petitioner was that the petitioner did not pay the stamp duty and registration fees for the total value shown in Annexure-1A. 17. Insofar as the finding of the 2nd respondent with respect to the first ground that was put against the petitioner, the same was interfered by the 1st respondent and it was held that the E.P.F attachment need not be taken into consideration for levy of stamp duty. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to get into this issue in this Writ Petition. 18. The only other issue which has to be gone into is the second ground that has been put against the petitioner regarding the value shown in Annexure-1A. While describing the immoveable property, apart from the land and building, all fittings and fixtures attached to the property was also sold in favour of the petitioner. While describing the fittings and fixtures, it is mentioned in the sale certificate as follows: “together with old RCC roof Building consisting of Security rooms. Office room. Guest house. Supervisor room. Toilet block. FM Room Power House, Plant rooms. Store rooms etc., admeasuring 22,675 sq.ft., and old AC sheet roof buildings consisting of Generator room, work shop. cycle shed, store room, godowns, spinning mills. kitchen. carding & below room, preparatory hall, yarn godown, packing section, mixing room etc., admeasuring 1,71,200 sq. ft., all fittings and fixtures andall other rights attached to the property situated within the Sub- Registration of Hosur.” 19. In the above description, there is a mention about “spinning mills”. The 2nd respondent has assumed that there is a separate spinning mill apart from the land and building which was conveyed in favour of the petitioner and that is the reason why in Column- 10 of Annexure-1A, there is a separate valuation to the tune of Rs.12.57 Crores apart from an independent valuation given for the site to the tune of Rs.8.25 Crores (approx.) in Column- 3. Obviously, this action was taken based on an audit objection. 20. This is a case where the petitioner is made to undergo this hardship due to inadvertent typographical errors that had crept in the sale certificate and which was not noticed by the petitioner and the Bank. Obviously, this action was taken based on an audit objection. 20. This is a case where the petitioner is made to undergo this hardship due to inadvertent typographical errors that had crept in the sale certificate and which was not noticed by the petitioner and the Bank. That is the reason why both the parties wanted to register a deed of rectification and it was not entertained by the Sub Registrar. Even though, there is a mention about spinning mills, the authority did not even inspect the property to find out if there is any independent spinning mill available in the property. It is brought to the notice of this Court that instead of mentioning as spinning room, it was mentioned as spinning mill and this was taken out of context by the authorities. 21. Insofar as the value mentioned in Annexure-1A, there was once again an error by mentioning as “excluding land”. This has been made clear by the 3rd respondent Bank even in their counter affidavit. It should have been mentioned in Column-10 as value of the executant “including land with” all other amenities. The earlier orders passed by this Court in the Company Petition and a careful reading of the sale certificate and the stand taken by the 3rd respondent Bank, makes it abundantly clear that the total value of the immoveable property was only Rs.12.57 Crores. Unfortunately, both the 1st and 2nd respondents pinned down the petitioner based on Annexure-1A even without giving a chance to the petitioner to rectify the mistake. 22. It must be borne in mind that the auction sale took place pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and the entire transaction happened under the scrutiny of this Court and the official liquidator appointed by this Court. Therefore, what was sold by the respondent Bank was only the land and building in favour of the petitioner and there was no need for undervaluing the sale certificate or convey more than what was permitted by this Court. The 1st and 2nd respondents blindly went by the audit objection and were not even prepared to take into consideration the explanation given by the Bank. The 3rd respondent Bank is a reputed nationalised Bank and they were coming forward to rectify the inadvertent errors that had crept in the sale certificate and that was not even permitted by the authorities. The 3rd respondent Bank is a reputed nationalised Bank and they were coming forward to rectify the inadvertent errors that had crept in the sale certificate and that was not even permitted by the authorities. The registration authorities, in their anxiety to augment revenue, cannot turn a blind eye to the genuine mistakes that are pointed out and attempted to be rectified and they ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the sale took place pursuant to the orders passed by this Court under the direct supervision of the official liquidator. This is a typical case where desperation to collect the revenue overwhelmed sound reasoning. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent partially confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent and accordingly, the same is quashed. This Court holds that there was no deficit stamp duty and registration fee payable by the petitioner and impounding the registered sale certificate is not sustainable. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to return back the registered sale certificate to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be a further direction to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to immediately rectify the errors that had crept in the sale certificate and the deed of rectification shall be presented for registration before the concerned Sub Registrar within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the said document shall be entertained and registered and thereafter, it shall be handed over to the petitioner. 24. This Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.