Allowed

Odungattu Naser v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2024WP(C)/5997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that revenue recovery proceedings are not a bar to filing a statutory appeal under Section 45B of the Stamp Act. The order rejecting the application to remit 25% deficit duty was set aside, and the registrar was directed to countersign the challan.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to countersign treasury challan; petitioner given liberty to seek stay in District Court.

Odungattu Naser Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5997 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ODUNGATTU NASER

¶8

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED, PRESIDENT, MIFTHAHUL HUDA MADRASSA SANGAM, REG.NO.224/1990 MOONNIYOOR SOUTH P.O., PARAKKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676311

¶9

BY ADV K.K.SAIDALAVI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, PIN - 676306

¶15

DEEPA V, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.5997/2024

..2..

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in his capacity as the President of Madrassa namely Mifthahul Huda Madrassa, which is registered as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also registered before the Kerala State Wakf Board, purchased an extent of 2.83 cents of land for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) vide document No.2566/2017 of S.R.O., Tenhipalam.

¶21

2 . The respondent No.3 initiated action against the petitioner alleging undervaluation of stamp duty in respect of the above-mentioned document. Finally, Ext.P4 order under Section 45B of the Stamp Act was passed directing the petitioner to pay Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand only) towards deficit stamp duty and registration fee. In order to prefer appeal, the petitioner has to pay 25% of the said amount. The petitioner submitted treasury challan before the respondent No.3 to remit the 25% of the said amount in order to prefer appeal. However, as per Ext.P5 order, the respondent No.3 rejected the said request and did not countersign the treasury challan on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶22

3 . I have heard Sri.K.K.Saidalavi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Smt.Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.5997/2024

¶24

..3..

¶25

4 . Ext.P4 is appealable before the District Court. The petitioner has

¶26

every right to challenge Ext.P4 before the appellate authority. However, the appeal will be entertained only if 25% of the deficit stamp duty and registration fee is paid. The petitioner has initiated steps to remit the said amount. However, the respondent No.3 rejected the application filed by the petitioner to remit the amount through Government Treasury on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings have already been initiated.

¶27

5 . The initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings is not a bar to file a statutory appeal against the order passed under Section 45B of the Stamp Act before the appellate authority. Hence, Ext.P5 order is set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to countersign the treasury challan submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner shall prefer an appeal before the District Court within a period of ten days. The District Court shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same, in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to move an application before the District Court seeking stay of Ext.P4 order. Till an order is passed on the stay application by the District Court, the revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

APA

W.P.(C) No.5997/2024

..4..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5997/2024

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT-	P1 TRUE COPY THENHIPPAL	OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2566/2017, SRO, AM DATED 26.9.2017.
EXHIBIT-	P2 TRUE COP DTD.20/9/2 BOARD VIDE	Y OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, 017, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE WAQF REGISTRATION NOA8. 9348/CR
EXHIBIT-	P3 TRUE COPY THEN PRESI THE 3RD RE	OF REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE DENT OF MADRASSA ON 2.11.2020 BEFORE SPONDENT
EXHIBIT-	P4 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT 12.11.2020	OF THE FINAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD VIDE NO.ADT/3/2566/17/TPLM. DATED .
EXHIBIT-	P5 TRUE COPY NO.ADT 4/ RESPONDENT	OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2024 VIDE 2566/2017/TPLM, ISSUED BY THE 3RD .
EXHIBIT-	P6 TRUE COPY THE LICEN	OF VALUATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SED ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN
	AFFAIRS, 23/11/2023	GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DATED .
EXHIBIT	-P7 TRUE COPY RR NO.2023 4TH RESPON	OF REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS VIDE /7765/10 DATED 22/11/2023 ISSUED BY DENT.

Odungattu Naser v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odungattu Naser v. State of Kerala

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

Ramani Vs District Collector

Kaniyath Kanakarajan Vs the District Collector

Shajan.K. Vs State of Kerala

Usha Parameswaran Vs the District Collector

Sivan Vs the Village Officer Athirapilly

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala