Padmanabha D N Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Government of Karnataka

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS, GANDHINAGARA REGISTRATION DISTRICT, NO.8, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR BALAMURI GANAPATHI TEMPLE, TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU-560092

¶24

THE SUB REGISTRAR GANDHINAGAR (MALLESHWARAM) NO.11, 12, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST AND 2^ND MAIN ROAD, GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560003

¶25

&RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN PraAaKa/STP (APPEAL)/05/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND NO.45-A(1)/M/01/2017-18 ON THE FILED OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 3, HEAR THE PARTIES AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2017, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, IN CASE NO.45-A(1)/M/01/2017-18 , VIDE WRIT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35269 WP No. 21131 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 in case No.45A(1)/M/01/2017-18 under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1957' for short), requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.12,42,975/towards being the deficit stamp duty and Rs.1,21,860/towards cess and Rs.2,43,720/- towards the deficit registration fee.

¶34

The petitioners contend that their elder brother had presented a sale deed for registration of a property situated in Malleshwaram, Bangalore on 25.03.2017. The respondent No.4 had issued an intimation that the property was undervalued under Rule 3A of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1977, as amended by Rules, 1999. The petitioners Nos.2 and 3 and their elder brother participated in the enquiry. The respondent No.4 received the document and pending registration of the document impounded

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35269 WP No. 21131 of 2022

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

it and sent it to respondent No.3 for enquiry. The respondent No.3 registered a case and issued notice to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 and their brother. The petitioners entered appearance and submitted that they purchased the property in question in terms of an agreement of sale dated 12.04.2004 for a sum of Rs.25,81,500/-. They claimed that they were put in possession of the said property on 01.06.2007 under the agreement of sale dated 12.04.2004. They contended that their brother suffered from kidney failure and therefore, they were not in a position to obtain a sale deed until 25.03.2017, on which day they presented the sale deed for registration. They claimed that the sale deed was in line with the terms mentioned in the agreement of sale dated 12.04.2004. However, the respondent No.3 did not considered it. The respondent No.4 after a spot verification, passed an order dated 18.11.2017 requiring the petitioners and their elder brother to pay deficit stamp duty, cess and deficit registration fee as mentioned supra . The petitioners claimed that their elder brother died on 17.08.2019. They came to know about the impugned order somewhere in the year 2021 and after obtaining certified copies of the impugned order, they

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35269 WP No. 21131 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

challenged the same before the respondent No.2 in STP Appeal No.05/2022. They also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. They also deposited 50% of the deficit stamp duty and deficit registration fee, as prescribed under Section 45-A(5) of the Act, 1957. The respondent No.2 without considering the application for condonation of delay, particularly in the light of the contention of the petitioners that their elder brother died on 17.08.2019 and that they came to know of the impugned order only in the year 2021, passed a cryptic order rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed after four years. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent No.3 as well as the respondent No.2.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 before whom a statutory appeal was filed, was bound to consider the application for condonation of delay sympathetically in view of the contention of the petitioners that their brother died on 17.08.2019 and that they came to know of the impugned order just before they filed the appeal before respondent No.2. He contends that since the petitioners have already deposited 50% of the deficit stamp duty and

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:35269 WP No. 21131 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

registration fee, the respondent No.2 was bound to consider the appeal on merits.

¶46

The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the respondent No.3 has conducted a spot inspection of the property in question and after being satisfied about the amenities available and its location, has rightly held that the value mentioned in the sale deed did not represent the actual market value and therefore, the impugned order is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶47

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶48

The respondent No.3 has passed an order in exercise of his power under Section 45-A(5) of the Act , 1957 and has determined the deficit stamp duty and the deficit registration fee payable by the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged this order in a statutory appeal before the respondent No.2. The petitioners have also deposited 50% of the amount as determined by respondent No.3, which is in compliance with Section 45-A(5) of the Act, 1957. They have

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:35269 WP No. 21131 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The respondent No.2 instead of cursorily rejecting the application for condonation of delay, must have considered the same sympathetically in view of the claim of the petitioners that their brother died on 17.08.2019 and that they were not served with the order dated 18.11.2017 soon after it was passed. The respondent No.2 was hence bound in law to consider the statutory appeal in accordance with law and was also expected to dispose off the appeal in accordance with law.

¶53

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners by a one line order deserves warrants interference.

¶54

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed. The appeal before the respondent No.2 is restored. The application filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and consequently the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 shall consider the appeal on merits and dispose of the

¶55