Sini Represented By Father Eapen Chacko vs State Of Kerala Represented By District Collector Idukki

C.S.Dias, J

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext P5 order passed by the second respondent ordering the petitioner to pay Rs.12,000/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.5,350/-towards deficit registration fee in respect of Ext P2 sale deed registered in his favour.

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that, he is a mentally retarded person as evidenced by Ext P1 certificate. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of property in survey No.162/5/1 of the Neyyassery Village in Thodupuzha Taluk, which was purchased for his benefit as per Ext P2 sale deed. The petitioner has been served with Ext P3 revenue recovery notice directing him to pay Rs.10,700/- towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.5,350/- towards deficit registration fee in respect of Ext P2 sale deed. Although, the petitioner had preferred Ext P4 application before the second respondent contending that he was not served with any notice, temporary order or final order, the Public Information Officer of the second respondent has served Ext P5 final order dated 28.6.2019 on the petitioner. In Ext P5 order it is stated that the petitioner was served with notice. The said finding is incorrect. In an identical situation this Court has passed Ext P8 order in favour of the petitioner therein. Ext P5 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

Heard: Sri.Bobby George, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Renjith, the learned Government Pleader.

The petitioner seeks to quash Ext P5 final order principally on the ground that he was not served with any notice, temporary order or final order by the second respondent.

The dispute in the writ petition pertains to payment of requisite stamp fee as well as registration charges for the registration of Ext P2 sale deed.

Sec.45B of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (’Act’ in short) lays down the manner in which undervalued instruments have to be dealt with.

Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.45B of the Act, explicitly postulates that any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub-sec.(2) or sub-sec.(3) of Sec.45B may file an appeal to the District Collector within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy as provided under the Act. Just because the petitioner is a mentally retarded person, the same does not confer him any right to bye pass the statutory remedy and approach this Court directly, that too, apparently with an inordinate delay. Ext P5 order was passed as early as on 28.6.2019.

On an overall analysis of the pleadings and materials on record and considering the fact that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy as referred to above, I am not inclined to allow the writ petition.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out his statutory remedies, in accordance with law.