Allowed

Smt. Madhu Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Nov 2024WPC/2964/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought return of transfer deeds presented for registration but not registered after Collector of Stamps initiated undervaluation proceedings under Section 47-A and fixed stamp duty. Holding Rule 45 obliged return of documents withdrawn from registration, the court quashed the Collector's rejection order and directed return of the deeds as unregistered.

What did the court decide?

Unregistered transfer deeds ordered to be returned with prescribed endorsement; order dated 03.05.2016 rejecting return application quashed.

Smt. Madhu Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶3

2024:CGHC:45033

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2964 of 2016

¶7

1 - Smt. Madhu Jain W/o Shri G.C. Jain, Aged About 56 Years Director, M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd, R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd., Thorugh Its Director Gulab Jain, Aged About 57 Year, S/o Late Lalchand Jain, Office At B 2/11, Ravi Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thorugh Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - College Of Stamps And Distirct Registrar, Raipur Collectorate Campus, Raipur, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Sub Registrar, Office Of Registrar Raipur, Raipur Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

¶16

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶17

WPC No. 2965 of 2016

¶18

1 - M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Gulab Jain, Aged About 57 Years, S/o Late Lalchand Jain, Office At B-2/11, Ravi Bhawan, G. E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶19

2 - Smt. Madhu Jain, W/o Shri G. C. Jain, Aged About 56 Years Director, M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd., R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

---- Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶23

2 - Collector Of Stamps And District Registrar Raipur, Collectorate Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶24

3 - Sub Registrar, Office Of Registrar Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶25

---- Respondents

¶26

WPC No. 2098 of 2016

¶27

1 - Gulab Jain S/o Late Lalchand Jain, Aged About 57 Years Director, M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd., R/o Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶28

2 - M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd, Through Its Director Smt. Madhu Jain,

¶29

¶30

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶31

Aged About 56 Year, W/o G. C. Jain, Office At B2/11, Ravi Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

---- Petitioners

¶33

Versus

¶34

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶35

2 - Collector Of Stamps And District Registrar Raipur, Collectorate Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶36

3 - Sub Registrar, Office Of Registrar Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶37

---- Respondents

¶38

For Petitioners : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶39

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶40

Order on Board

¶41

19.11.2024

¶42

1. Since, common facts and grounds involved in all these writ petitions, they are being considered and disposed off by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents of WPC No.2964 of 2016 are being referred.

¶43

1. By the present writ petition, petitioners are questioning the order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 2

¶44

¶45

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶46

by which the application filed by them requesting return of unregistered document has been rejected. The petitioners are also questioning the action of the respondent No. 3 i.e. the SubRegistrar Office of Registrar, Raipur who is not returning the document presented for registration when the petitioners are not interested to get the document registered and want to withdraw the document from registration.

¶47

1. (i) The brief facts of the case are that :

¶48

a) in WPC No.2964 of 2016 : the petitioner No. 1 executed a transfer-deed of structure i.e. office No.T-318 to T-340 admeasuring 19840 square feet built up area and carpet area of 15500 sq.ft. at 3^rd Floor of Guru Ghasidas Plaza, Amapara, G.E. Road, Raipur.

¶49

b) in WPC No.2098 of 2016 : the petitioner No. 1 has received the permanent lease an area measuring 6600 sq.ft. built up and carpet area of 5169 sq.ft. at 2^nd Floor of Guru Ghasidas Plaza, Amapara, GE Road, Raipur.

¶50

c) in WPC No.2965 of 2016 : the petitioner No. 1 is authorised to transfer the structure i.e. office No.F-501 to F- 517 admeasuring 7250 square feet built up area and carpet area of 6440 sq.ft. at 5^th Floor of Guru Ghasidas Plaza, Amapara, G.E. Road, Raipur.

¶51

(ii) Subsequently, transfer deeds were executed between the petitioners for transfer of aforesaid properties on 31.05.2007, 31.05.2007 and 31/3/2010, respectively. The said transfer deeds

¶52

¶53

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶54

were duly signed by the petitioners and presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Raipur under the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act, 1908’) and the Chhattisgarh Registration Rules, 1939 (for short ‘the CG Rules, 1939’). The said unregistered transfer deed was forwarded to the Office of Sub-Registrar for proper valuation of said property and stamp duty payable on the transfer deed. The respondent No. 2 proceeded under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, (for short ‘the Act, 1899’). The said document was not registered before it was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2.

¶55

(iii) The respondent No. 2 pursuant to the document forwarded by the Sub-Registrar, initiated proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, 1899 and fixed the market value of the property as Rs. 4,52,89,200/- (Rupees four crore fifty two lakh eighty nine thousand two hundred only) vide its order dated 11.09.2014. The proceedings were initiated on 06.11.2007 by the respondent No. 2/Collector and notices were issued to the petitioners. The respondent No. 2/Collector held that on the said market value, stamp duty of Rs. 43,02,474/- (Rupess forty three lakh two thousand four hundred and seventy four only) to be paid by the petitioners and further imposed the fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in exercise of the power under Section 33 read with Section 40-B of the Act 1899. The transfer document submitted by the petitioners was not registered and the Collector has directed collection of stamp duty. As the document was not

¶56

¶57

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶58

registered and the order was passed by the Collector for payment of stamp duty without there being any opportunity given by SubRegistrar for taking back the document, the petitioner moved an application on 29.04.2016 seeking return of transfer document. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Collector vide order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P/1) stating that the proceeding for recovery of stamp duty has already been initiated and the Collector (Stamp) has no power to return the document. The petitioner also moved an application dated 24.06.2016 before the Sub-Registrar seeking return of transfer deed unregistered. Hence the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

¶59

1. (A) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that earlier the petitioners filed the application before the respondent No. 2 seeking registration of the transfer deed. The Sub-Registrar, Raipur has acted contrary to the provisions of Section 58, 59 & 60 of the Registration Act and no proceedings have been recorded by the Sub-Registrar in the minute book maintained under the provisions of the Registration Act. He would further submit that Sub-Registrar, Raipur ought to have given an option to the petitioners before initiating the proceeding under Section 47-A of the Act 1899 to withdraw the documents from registration. The Sub-Registrar further ought to have issued the proper communication and orders to the petitioners as to whether the petitioners are willing to pay advoleram fees on the documents presented for the registration and also whether they want to withdraw the documents. However, the

¶60

¶61

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶62

Sub-Registrar had not registered the documents produced by the petitioners forwarding the same to the office of Collector of Stamps under the provision of Section 47-A.

¶63

(B) Learned counsel also submit that on perusal of the certified copy of the document presented by the petitioners for registration, it appears that the Registering Officer has not followed the provisions of CG Registration Rules and no endorsement made on the document as per the rules affixing the stamp as required under the Rules. The rules required that before admitting the documents, endorsement are to be made as per the provisions of Rule 30 and thereafter a demand has to be made. Learned counsel submits that as the provisions of Registration Rules were not followed, the application for withdrawal of document without registration was moved, however the application has been rejected on erroneous fact that the document presented by the petitioners has already been registered. He referred a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Bhagwandas and Others vs. Collector of Stamps and District Registrar and Others¹ and submits that Rule 45 of M.P. Registration Rules 1939 provides for return of document unregistered. According to this Rule if the party who presented a document for registration wishes to withdraw it, it shall be returned to him with the endorsement “returned un-registered at the request of the person concerned who presented it”. Hence in the present case also the respondents were duty bound to return the unregistered deed at the request of the petitioners.

¶64

1 (2002) 5 M.P.LJ. 153

¶65

¶66

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶67

1. (a) The respondent/State filed its return and submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable as there is an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the relevant rules by challenging the order passed by the Collector of Stamps before the Commissioner (Revenue) Raipur Division, Raipur. They have also contended that the Collector of Stamps after perusing the documents and reply submitted by the respective parties came to the conclusion that, the document submitted before the SubRegistrar, falls within the category of sale-deed and under Section 2(10) of the Act 1899 and as per Schedule- I A of Article 23 the same is liable to be charged with stamp duty. The learned Collector of Stamps under Rule 4 & 5 of the Indian Stamp Act (Chhattisgarh Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1975 and under Section 47-(A) (1) of the Act, 1899, ascertained the market value of the property to be Rs. 4,52,89,200/- (Rupees Four crore fifty two lakh eighty nine thousand two hundred only). It has been pleaded that the order of Collector Annexure P/4 dated 11.09.2014 was not challenged by any party before higher forum and hence the same is liable to be executed. In fact, the petitioner cannot withdraw the document and hence the order of the Collector rejecting the application is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶68

(b) Learned counsel for the respondent/State further submits that the petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners are having a remedy to challenge the same before the Commissioner and the

¶69

¶70

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶71

Board of Revenue. The application for return of deed has rightly been rejected as the proceeding was already been drawn by the Collector of Stamps vide order dated 11.09.2024 and directed the parties to deposit the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 43,07,224/- (Rupees Forty three lakh seven thousand two hundred and twenty four only) and even the parties have failed to deposit the said amount and the matter was pending for R.R.C. for recovery of the amount with respect to the deficit stamp duty.

¶72

1. I have heard both the parties and perused the documents.

¶73

1. It is not in dispute that the application was moved by the petitioners on 29.04.2016 seeking return of transfer document dated 31.05.2007. It is not in dispute that the said document was not registered at the time when the petitioners were seeking return of the transfer document. As the application for withdrawal of the document without registration was moved, the respondent/Collector was duty bound to consider the said application under the Rule 45 of M.P. Registration Rules 1939. The Rule 45 provides for return of documents un-registered and according to this Rule if the party who presented a document for registration wishes to withdraw it, it shall be returned to him with the endorsement “returned unregistered at the request of the person concerned who presented it”. It further provides that the fact of return has to be recorded in the minute book. The purpose of considering the aforesaid rules is to see as to whether the aforesaid procedure has been followed in the present case or not.

¶74

¶75

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶76

1. As far as objection of the State about the alternative remedy is concerned, in the present case it is not a case where the petitioners are seeking any challenge to the order of Collector fixing the stamp duty, he is only questioning the order by which the Collector rejected the application whereby the petitioners were seeking to withdraw the questioned document dated 31.05.2007 to be returned as un-registered document, hence the objection raised by the petitioners is not sustainable.

¶77

1. In the present case the Collector has rejected the application on the ground that there is an order passed for payment of the deficit stamp vide order dated 11.09.2014 (Annexure P/4) and the petitioner failed to comply with the said order and recovery proceeding has also been drawn and hence the application cannot be entertained.

¶78

1. The Rule 45 of the M.P. Registration Rules 1939 have been considered in the case of Bhagwandas (supra) , wherein similar issue has been dealt with and it has been observed that when the rules itself provide for withdrawal of document presented for registration and when the petitioner does not want to register the document, the proposed action is unsustainable. In the case in hand also the petitioners moved the application to withdraw the document which was presented for registration and he requested to return the un-registered document as the petitioners are not interested to get the document registered and want to withdraw the document from the registration. As the Rule provides and

¶79

¶80

WPC Nos. 2964/2016, 2965/2016 & 2098/2016

¶81

empowers the respondent to return the document unregistered. The respondents are directed to return the un-registered document dated 31.05.2007 with an endorsement “returned un-registered at the request of the person concerned who presented it” by following the Rule 45 of the M.P. Registration Rules 1939. The order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2/Collector is herby quashed.

¶82

11) Ex consequenti, all the writ petitions are allowed.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶85

Shoaib

Smt. Madhu Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhu Jain v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nakul Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Oriental Public School Ambikapur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Loyola School Bilaspur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pranamya Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh