Partly allowed

R. Neetha v. the Registar General

Kerala HC10 Mar 2017WP(C)/836/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court observed that the record lacked sufficient proof of notice and enquiry proceedings under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act regarding undervaluation. Consequently, the impugned orders initiating recovery action were set aside, and the respondents were directed to serve adequate notice and provide an opportunity of hearing before finalizing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders under Section 45B reading Rs.3, 3 were set aside and respondents directed to issue notice by registered post and consider objections with a four-month timeline for finality.

R. Neetha Vs the Registar General — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/19TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 836 of 2017 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. R. NEETHA, W/O DR. SREENATH, AGED 27 YEARS, "LAKSHMISREE", CHUNNAMBUTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶8

2. V.RAJASEKHAR, S/O VISWANATHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, VISWASREE, KESAVAMENON COLONY, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678101.

¶12

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR,

¶13

OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, OLAVAKKODE-678101.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶15

TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678101.

¶16

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678101.

¶17

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD 1 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678101.

¶18

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT K.R. DEEPA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 30380/2016, AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.V.

¶21

WPC(C).No. 836 of 2017 (D)

¶22

		AP	PENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY	OF DOCU	MENT N	O.381/12 OF S.R.O. PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY UNDER S.7	OF THE OF THE	NOTICE KERALA	ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT REVENUE RECOVERY, ACT, 1965.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY KERALA REV	OF THE ENUE RE	NOTICE COVERY	ISSUED UNDER S.34 OF THE ACT, 1965.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY WPC NO.303	OF THE 80/2016	ORDER .	DATED 9.9.16 IN
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY WPC NO.303	OF THE 86/2016	ORDER .	DATED 9.9.2016 IN
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY WPC NO.304	OF THE 58/2016	ORDER .	DATED 9.9.2016 IN
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY WPC NO.304	OF THE 86/2016	ORDER .	DATED 9.9.2016 IN
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------	NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No.836 of 2017 and W.P.(C) Nos. 30380, 30386,30458 & 30486 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the action initiated for undervaluation under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act and the relevant rules. The main grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition is that, before passing the impugned orders, the petitioners were not provided with sufficient opportunity of hearing and it is thereupon that, petitioners seek to quash Exts.P2 to P5 in the writ petitions (Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.836/207 and Exts.P3 to P5 in other writ petitions). Other reliefs are also sought for by the petitioners to the effect that, a stamp value is fixed under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, the respondents cannot take or initiate any action under Section 45B of the Act, on the ground that, there is undervaluation over and above the guide price fixed as per Section 28A of the Stamp Act.

¶30

State have filed counter affidavit in the writ petitions stating that, the State is vested with sufficient powers to initiate

¶31

W.P.(C). No.836/17 & W.P.(C) Nos. 30380, 30386, 30458 and 30486 of 2016 2

¶32

suo motu action against the registered documents if it is found that, there is undervaluation. It is also submitted that, as per rule 4(1)(1A) of Kerala Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules, 1968, hereinafter called “the Rules”, notice was issued to petitioners on various dates instructing to submit

¶33

representation if any, in writing to show that, the value/consideration of the properties has been truly and correctly set forth in the document, however no reply was received from them. According to the 1^st respondent, it was thereupon intimation were served to the petitioners in Form No.III asking their representations if any regarding the matter, however, the petitioners did not respond to the same also. Thereupon final order was passed fixing the land value as per the power vested on the respondents under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act and forwarded to the Revenue Recovery Authorities to initiate revenue recovery action to recover the amount due on the basis of the undervaluation. Therefore, it is the contention of the respondents that, petitioners have not

¶34

W.P.(C). No.836/17 & W.P.(C) Nos. 30380, 30386, 30458 and 30486 of 2016 3

¶35

made out any case warranting interference of this court.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Senior

¶37

Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶38

The sole question to be considered at this stage of proceedings is whether the petitioners were served with sufficient notice as per the provisions of Section 45B and the Rules framed thereunder. Even though it is stated in the counter affidavit filed in some of the writ petitions that, notices and provisional orders were issued and forwarded to the petitioners, there is no sufficient proof before this court to ascertain whether notice were issued, enquiry was conducted after inviting representations and provisional orders were issued and forwarded to the petitioners. In that view of the matter, I think petitioners are entitled to succeed and get an opportunity for re-consideration of the issue. However, in respect of the ground raised by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act cannot be sustained for the reason that, merely

¶39

W.P.(C). No.836/17 & W.P.(C) Nos. 30380, 30386, 30458 and 30486 of 2016 4

¶40

because a minimum guide price is fixed, that doesn't mean that, if undervaluation is done by the purchasers over and above the guide price fixed, the same cannot be proceeded with. Undervaluation proceedings are undertaken by the competent authority relying on the provisions of Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act and the attendant Rules framed thereunder. Sufficient parameters and stipulations are provided under the Rules guiding competent statutory authority the manner in which the proceedings are to be completed. These are all matters to be considered in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each and every case.

¶41

Since I have found that, there are no enabling circumstances for this court to arrive at a definite conclusion that, notices were served on the petitioners before finalising the proceedings under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act, I set aside the impugned order in the writ petitions viz., Exts.P2 to and P5, and direct the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners by registered post, receive objections from them and

¶42

W.P.(C). No.836/17 & W.P.(C) Nos. 30380, 30386, 30458 and 30486 of 2016 5

¶43

consider the issue after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. Any how a finality shall be attained to the whole process within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was stayed by this court when these writ petitions were admitted to the files of this court. The said order is extended till such time the proceedings are finalized as directed above.

¶44

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶46

smv 10.03.2017

R. Neetha v. the Registar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Neetha v. the Registar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeja Thomas Vs Sri K Premanadan

Varghese Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ali.K.K Vs the Union of India

Dr.Bobby Iype Vs Dr.Ramla Beevi

Rojer Mathew Vs the Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited

Mini Kumari K Vs the Tahsildar, Ambalappuzha