R. Ponnuchamy vs The District Collector

S. Nagamuthu, J.—Twenty-one long years, proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has not been concluded and the sale deed has not been returned. With this grievance, the petitioner is before this Court, with this Writ Petition.

The facts of the case would be as follows:

The petitioner purchased 2.78 acres of land comprised in R.S. No. 132/3, Nadupatti Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District on 23.06.1993 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. He presented the sale deed before the third respondent for registration. Going by the guideline value, the Sub Registrar claimed that the document had been under valid and the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 16,819.20 as deficit stamp duty. The petitioner objected to the same. Therefore, the document was registered on the same day, but a reference was made by the fifth respondent to the second respondent, who is the Collector for the purpose of Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 for determining the market value of the property and the duty to be payable therein. The said reference was received by the second respondent, admittedly, on 30.07.1993. Though twenty-one years has lapsed after such a reference, the grievance of the petitioner is that no final order of determination was passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

The second respondent Mr. G. Natarajan is present before this Court along with the original file. He has also filed a detailed counter, wherein the above fact has not been disputed. When it was asked to explain to the Court, why no final order of determination could be passed under Section 47-A for the past twenty-one long number of years, he submitted that on receipt of the reference on 30.07.1993, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 22.06.1998 itself for enquiry. But the petitioner did not appear. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms. 35 Commercial Department dated 26.02.1999, introducing a Samathan Scheme. According to the said Scheme, if half of the Stamp Duty as fixed by the Sub-Registrar is paid, the matter would be closed and document would be returned. The second respondent therefore issued a notice to the petitioner on 26.03.1999, informing him about the above said Scheme and also wanted to utilise the said Samathan Scheme. But the petitioner did not want to enjoy the benefits of the Scheme and instead has filed an objection on 06.01.2003 regarding the original reference made under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. The facts further reads that after the said objection dated 06.01.2003, no further proceedings was conducted as required under Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamps Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.

Without passing any final order of determination under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 the second respondent surprisingly initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 16,819.20. As per the same, a notice was issued on 04.07.2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner did not pay the amount despite the initiation of the said Revenue Recovery Proceedings. Yet another notice was issued on 24.06.2010, for which the petitioner did not respond. At that juncture, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.

Admittedly, no final order of determination was passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. When that be so, the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of Rs. 16,819.20 is illegal. The second respondent who is present in Court submitted that this amount represents the amount fixed by the fifth respondent. In view of the above, I have to hold that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It needs that a direction should be issued to the second respondent to pass an order of determination under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 without allowing any further delay in this matter.

When the second respondent was asked as to why there was delay of twenty-one years, he gave the following reasons. His office is exercising jurisdiction over five Revenue Districts viz., Tiruchirappalli, Karur, Pudukkottai, Ariyalur and Perambalur. His office is in Tiruchirappalli Town attached to the Old Collectorate. There are four Tahsildar posts sanctioned for his office. But only three are working as of now. They are working in the respective District. So far his office is concerned, there are six posts of Assistant and one post of Typist sanctioned by the Government. The appointing authority is the District Revenue Officer viz., third respondent herein. But shockingly the post of five Assistants have been kept vacant atleast for one year. The details of the vacancy before one year is not known. The last vacancy also occurred three months ago. Thus, now all the six posts of Assistant are vacant. The lone post of Typist is also kept vacant. As a result, the entire office is run by a single person viz., the Special Deputy Collector. Now, he is all rolled into one the doing work of six Assistants, one Typist and one Tahsildar. It is common knowledge that when a typist is not available it is not possible to type the correspondences and the enquiry statements from the parties. In the absence of Assistants, it is difficult to sent notices, to draft orders, to post the orders and to do every work.

The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) is a quasi judicial authority, who has to make a visit to the properties spreading in five districts and he has to pass a preliminary order under the Rules, calling for objection, if any, from the parties and then he has to pass orders of final determination on appreciation of evidence to be let in. The Advocates appearance is also permitted. When there is such a compulsion and the quasi judicial proceedings is expected to be conducted by the Special Deputy Collector, it is really shocking to note that to assist him there is no other person working in the office. Now, as I have already pointed out it is an one man show. He would further state that as of now around 2000 matters referred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 are pending with him. Many of them are pending for several years. Virtually, his job has become very difficult. He cannot dispose of 2000 matters in the near future.

When I asked him to explain to the Court as to whether he has brought the same to notice of the District Revenue Officer, who is the authority to fill up the vacancy either by transfer or appointment or by deputation, he would further state that he did so. He would further submit that the present District Revenue Officer has assured to fill up the same soon. When a further query was made to him as to whether he had informed the same to the District Collector, he stated that he did not do so. But, anyhow, it is for the District Collector, who is administering the entire District to know as to what is happening in his office and to see that the work is not stagnated on account of the vacancy caused in the vital posts. The statement made by the second respondent is really shocking. The ultimate sufferers are the parties, whose documents numbering 2000 are pending for several years. This only shows that neither the District Collector nor the District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli is showing their best attention, which is required of from them to see that the office of the second respondent functions smoothly. I am only hopeful that the District Revenue Officer and the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli would take immediate steps to see six Assistants and one Typist are sent atleast on doing duty basis or on deputation, so that the arrears can be cleared of.

Now, turning to the relief sought for by the petitioner, it is one for direction for return of sale deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the document has been pending for 21 years, the petitioner is not in a position even to get electricity connection for agricultural purpose. The condition of the petitioner is really pitiable.

Having regard to the above, when the second respondent was asked as to how much time now he requires for passing order of determination under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, the second respondent submitted that he would finish the task within four weeks, provided the petitioner cooperates.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The second respondent shall pass final order on the reference made under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in respect of document No. 1205 of 1993, on the file of the fifth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the second respondent for disposal of the matter within the time frame.

(iii) The sale deed shall be returned to the petitioner, after final order is passed and after the petitioner pays the finally determined deficit stamp duty, if any.

(iv) The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli are directed to fill up the post of six Assistants and one post of Typist either on transfer or on deputation to the office of the second respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that the second respondent shall dispose of the pending matters.

(v) The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli and the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tiruchirappalli shall submit an action taken report on or before 01.12.2014.

No costs.