The Uttar Pradesh Cabinet has finally done what families across the state had been pleading for: to cut the stamp duty burden on dividing property. On Tuesday, the government approved a cap of Rs 5,000 on both stamp duty and registration fees for partition deeds. To call this a technical reform would be an understatement; this move strikes at the heart of a long-standing problem: endless family disputes over land and houses.
Until now, partitioning family property meant coughing up 4 per cent stamp duty and 1 per cent registration fee on the market value of the asset. Imagine a family house worth Rs 50 lakh. Simply formalising the division on paper would cost Rs 2.5 lakh. For most families, that figure was really high.
The Cabinet’s Calculation
Now, with this Rs 5,000 ceiling, the math changes. Families can register their partition without the dread of bleeding money. The state government admits it will lose revenue upfront of Rs 5.58 crore in stamp duty and Rs 80.67 lakh in registration fees. That’s not pocket change. But here’s the gamble: what’s lost in immediate collections will be recovered when thousands of families, who previously avoided registration, finally walk into the registrar’s office. More registrations mean cleaner records, fewer fake claims, and ultimately more revenue down the line, as per a report by PTI.
Lessons from Other States
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh have already tried similar caps. The outcomes there were positive, litigation went down, families formalised their settlements, and land records became easier to manage. Uttar Pradesh is now following that playbook, but the stakes here are arguably higher because the state has a notorious backlog of property-related cases. To put it bluntly, if this reform actually works, it could unclog a part of the legal system that has been choked for decades.
Earlier this year, the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath made another significant decision: a 1 per cent discount in stamp duty on property worth up to Rs 1 crore when purchased in the name of a woman. It may sound like a minor tweak, but it signals policy intent. Encouraging property ownership among women is both a social and economic move. Families that put assets in women’s names often end up with stronger financial security. Critics may argue the discount is modest, yet even small savings matter when buying property in a state where land values keep climbing.
