Kaliannan vs The Sub Registrar and The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)

B. Rajendran, J.—The Petitioner, who has registered the document with the Sub Registrar, Velliyanai, Karur Taluk & District, would

contend that in spite of registration of the said document, dated 09.06.2010, the first Respondent has not returned the same and which has been kept as pending document No. P201000029.

The main grievance of the Petitioner is that if the authorities is not satisfied with the amount of the stamp duty paid or the valuation as disclosed

by the Petitioner, it is always open for them to send the document u/s 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act. (for short "the Act") fixing the proper value

of the property. But, even if it is referred to u/s 47(A) of the Act, there is No. impediment for the Respondents for returning the document in question pending disposal of the 47(A) application with necessary endorsement regarding the charge over the property. In this connection, the

Petitioner made a representation on 15.07.2010 requesting the Respondents to return the document. But, in spite of the same, they have not returned the documents. Therefore, he seeks for a Mandamus directing the first Respondent to return the document.

In support of his contention, he garners a judgment of this Court in Karmegam.G v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai reported in 2007 (5)

CTC 737, in which the question of reference period for 47(A) was dealt with. Incidentally, he would also contend that in so far as the return of document is concerned, it could be ordered with necessary endorsement and similar orders to this effect have also been passed by this Court. He has also produced an unreported order of this Court made in W.P(MD). No. 8751 of 2009 dated 16.09.2009. Therefore, he would contend that the documents should be returned forth with and as regards payment of disputed stamp duty, he fairly submits that it can be referred to u/s 47(A)

of the Indian Stamp Act.

Learned Additional Government Pleader took notice and would bring to the notice of this Court that as per the written instructions earlier the

Petitioner was informed by various notices to produce the FMB Sketch and Topo Sketch and also identify the property in question to have proper valuation of the building, since he did not co-operate, the Respondents could not pass orders. Since the document is necessary, it has been kept

pending.

Heard both sides. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal

The short point arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is that once the document has been registered and in view of the difference in

valuation of the property, pending adjudication, whether the Petitioner can seek for return of the document. In this connection, the Petitioner would contend that even though he has paid the stamp duty as well as the registration charges in accordance with the declared value, if the authority is not convinced of the valuation as set out by him, it is always open for the Respondent to refer the matter to fix the valuation u/s 47-A of the Act. But without doing so, the Respondent cannot have a roving enquiry or adjudicate upon such matter by himself.

In this connection, learned Government Pleader drew the attention of this Court to the Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (prevention of

Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. The said Rule is usefully extracted below:

(3) The registering officer may, for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, make such

enquires as he may deem fit. He may elicit from the parties concerned any information bearing on the subject and call for and examine any records kept with any public officer or authority.

The Registering officer himself may seek certain information from the party concerned or any other persons, who is aware of the same. Therefore,

in the present case, according to the Respondent, certain information has been sought for. Further, the authority has sougtht for cooperation from the Petitioner in so far as at least to identify the property concerned. However, he did not cooperate. To which, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner would contend that there was No. notice issued. Therefore, the first Respondent is directed to send a notice by registered post with acknowledgment due calling upon the Petitioner to appear in person before the first Respondent to identify the property in question so as to satisfy the requirements of the Respondents. On such appearance and necessary documents are produced before the first Respondent, the first

Respondent will decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law as to whether the document is to be returned or to be referred to u/s 47-

A of the Act.

Now, the main grievance of the Petitioner is that pending adjudication u/s 47-A of the Act, the Petitioner seeks for the document in question.

As far as this contention is concerned, following the earlier order of this Court made in W.P(MD). No. 8751 of 2009, it could be done so with

the following conditions:

(i)The concerned Respondents shall return the sale deed registered as document in question within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with an endorsement stating that the reference u/s 47(A)(1) is pending.

(ii)The concerned Respondents shall also make necessary entries in the registers showing the pendency of the proceedings u/s 47(A)(1) so as to reflect the same in the encumbrance certificate in the interest of purchasers.

(iii)Pending the final order to be passed u/s 47(A), there shall be a charge over the property in favour of the Government as per Section 47(A)(4)

of the Act.

(iv)After completion of the entire proceedings u/s 47(A)(1) including the appellate remedy available under the same, the Petitioner shall pay the amount when would be arrived at ultimately and after such payment on production of the original sale deed, the concerned Respondents shall make necessary endorsements stating that the entire amount due as per Section 47(A) has 7 been paid and there is No. amount due under the Indian

Stamp Act.

Following the decision reported in 2001 (2) CTC 449, The District Collector, Erode v. M.Ponnusamy and also the Full Bench decision of this

Court in Karmegam.G v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai reported in 2007 (5) CTC 737, there will be a direction to the first Respondent that he shall issue a notice calling upon the Petitioner to appear before him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with necessary documents and on such appearance and after following the due formalities, the document in question shall be released with the above conditions mentioned in para 8 of this order. While doing so, the Respondent is at liberty if it warrants to refer the matter u/s 47-A of the

Indian Stamp Act, 1989, for determining the property value of the land in accordance with law.

With the above directions and observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

No. costs.