Disposed

Mrs.M.Gowri v. JOINT-1 Sub-Registrar

Madras HC4 Feb 2010WP/11714/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an order fixing stamp duty on a property sale, the Madras High Court held that the petitioner had a viable alternative remedy under the Indian Stamp Act. The court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority instead of granting the writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; petitioner directed to file appeal before Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within two weeks; Authority directed to dispose of appeal within 45 days.

Mrs.M.Gowri Vs JOINT-1 Sub-Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.02.2010

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶5

W.P.No.11714 of 2003

¶6

M.Gowri .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Joint -I Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015
2. District Revenue Officer(Stamps)
District Collectorate Office
M.Singaravelar Maligai 5 th Floor
32, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600 001 .... Respondents
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of the writ of certiorarified
mandamus , as stated therein.
For Petitioner : No appearance
For Respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar, AGP
O R D E R

¶9

The petitioner through her power agent has filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus,to call for records from the second respondent relating to his proceedings Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.187/97 dated 31.3.2003 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to release the sale deed in Document No.1210/97 dated 14.3.1997 on the file of Joint-1,Sub Registrar at Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet, Chennai -15 in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶10

2.The petitioner's father being her power agent as an absolute owner of the house site measuring an extent of 4510 sq.ft comprised in S.No.32/4 and 32/5 of Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 had executed a sale deed in her favour and presented the same for registration before the first respondent on 14.3.1997. The sale deed was forwarded to the second respondent for determination of the market value of the property and duty payable thereon. The petitioner

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

received a notice dated 2.4.1997 in Form I issued under Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 informing about the reference made by the first respondent and was required to submit a representation to establish the true value along with necessary evidence within 21 days from the date of service. A representation dated 25.4.1997 was furnished to the second respondent. Consequently,later, issued a notice in Form II along with the copy of his order transitorily fixing the market value of the property and the duty payable there on.

¶13

A plea is taken in the writ petition to the effect that a notice was issued in Form II under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 but the second respondent had not specified the date of hearing and therefore,the petitioner could not represent the matter. Subsequently,the second respondent passed a final order affirming the transitorily value determined and due payable which was duly served on the petitioner on 1.4.2003. It is the stand of the petitioner that the Registering Authority under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 and the Indian Stamp Act 1889, the Registering Authority was to necessarily make an enquiry about the market value of the property before Registration of the documents and when the document was registered, the Registering Officer was deemed to have conducted an enquiry and satisfied himself in regard to the market value mentioned in the instrument etc and as such the reference made by the first respondent to fix the market value of the property was per se illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and further a duty was cast on the first respondent to record reasons for his belief in regard to the determination of the market value of the property and thereafter refer the matter to the second respondent and the power agent of the petitioner being her father purchased the property as per sale deed dated 29.6.1995 and transferred the property to his daughter viz., the petitioner for the same price within a period of one year nine months and in short, the first respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to make a reference without entertaining any reasonable plea in regard to the valuation of the property etc and also that the notice before inspection of the property was a mandatory one and failure to give such notice would vitiate the enquiry proceedings and make an enquiry as an illegal one and added further the second respondent had not mentioned the exact date of hearing in Form II notice to hear the representative in person and as such the same was not in conformity with the notice prescribed under the statutory Rules and therefore, had prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 31.3.2003.

¶14

Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's father being a power agent registered the sale deed dated 14.3.1997 bearing document No.1210/97 on the file of the first respondent by paying the stamp duty for the sale consideration of

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Rs.6,50,000/- in respect of the landed property measuring an extent of 4510 sq.ft comprised in S.No.32/4 and 32/5 of Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-4 in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.144 sq.ft and the guideline value was Rs.1287/-sq.ft and therefore, the document was impounded and referred to the second respondent for fixing the market value of the property and the stamp duty payable thereon.

¶17

Continuing further, the respondents take a plea that the sale deed was referred to the second respondent by the first respondent as per Section 47A (1) of Indian Stamp Act for fixation of market value and collection of the deficit stamp duty and therefore, Form I notice as per Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) 1968 was issued to the petitioner on 2.4.1997 to require the petitioner to submit her representation to exhibit the true value along with evidence within 21 days from the date of service of the notice and since the representation dated 25.4.1997 given by the petitioner's father was not satisfactory, the second respondent addressed the letter dated 18.8.1998 to the petitioner requesting to appear for enquiry within one week from the date of receipt of the said letter and the petitioner had not taken part in the enquiry and property was inspected and the market value determined at the rate of Rs.1287 per sq.ft by the second respondent on 18.2.2003 and the petitioner was informed about this fixation by the second respondent in Form II accompanied with the provisional order passed on 10.3.2003 in Roc No.3470/97 as per Rule 6 of Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of under valuation of Instruments) Rules 1968 and inasmuch as the petitioner had not responded as informed in the Form II notice, within fifteen days time prescribed there to, a final order was passed on 31.3.2003 by the second respondent who fixed the market value of the property at Rs.1287 per sq.ft and arriving at the deficit stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner at Rs.6,70,072/- for an extent of 4510 sq.ft in S.No.32/4 and 32/5 of Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41.

¶18

The core contention put forward on the side of the respondents is that the petitioner was provided with an ample opportunity in the matter in issue and there was no violation of principles of natural justice of any score and only after fulfilling the requirements and completing necessary formalities, the authorities determined the market value in respect of the sale deed dated 14.3.1997 bearing document No.1210/97 and the said document could be returned only, if the petitioner remits the deficit stamp duty and more over since the petitioner had not raised any objection within the time limit of sixty days, the sale deed was retained to recover the stamp duty amount with interest at 2% per month, failing which this amount would be recovered by means of revenue recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and therefore, the writ petition projected by the writ petitioner is not maintainable per se in the eye of law.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

A perusal of the Form 1 notice dated 2.4.1997 of the second respondent shows that the petitioner had to remit a sum of Rs.7,54,571 towards stamp duty and that he has only remitted a sum of Rs.84,500/- and the difference in stamp duty to be paid by him was around Rs.6,70,071/- and as a matter of fact, the Registering authority had determined the value as per the guide line at Rs.58,04,370/- and this notice was addressed to the power agent's daughter viz., the petitioner. Also the father of the petitioner had addressed a communication dated 24.4.1997 to the Special Deputy Collector( Stamps), Office of the District Collector, Chennai inter alia stating that the guide line shown in the notice at Rs.58,04,370/- was very exorbitant and imaginary and that it would be open to him to hold an enquiry with the allottees, who are the judicial officers of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Services and therefore, the guide line value may be ignored and confirm the sale transactions for the consideration determined that Rs. 6,50,000/- and also requested for dropping the contemplated proceedings initiated against his daughter(petitioner) herein. In Form II notice issued by the second respondent dated 10.3.1997, the petitioner (daughter of power agent) was informed that for final determination of the value of the land and the payable stamp duty, an enquiry would be conducted within fifteen days at 11.00 A.M in the morning and therefore, the petitioner was required to appear in the said enquiry with evidence there to and also the petitioner was required to produce oral and documentary evidence and if the stamp duty was not paid from the determination of the final order within two months there to, then to pay the default interest at 2% p.m.

¶21

In the communication of the second respondent dated 10.3.2003, the petitioner was informed that the property's market value was assessed at Rs.1287/- per sq.ft and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,70,072 towards stamp duty. Later on 31.3.2003, the second respondent in Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.187/97 had confirmed the amount of Rs.6,70,072/- towards the payment of stamp duty and passed the final orders accordingly and more over, the petitioner was informed that an appeal could be preferred before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Inspector General of Registration).

¶22

Inasmuch as the petitioner has a viable, effective and efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (The Inspector General of Registration) as per Indian Stamp Act 1899, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this Court seeking the relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India by circumventing or by passing the statutory procedure where the petitioner can obtain an adequate remedy and more so, when the disputed facts are involved and also this is not a fit case for this Court to exercise of its discretionary power under writ jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, this Court directs the petitioner as an equitable relief to avail her remedy of preferring an appeal by invoking factual and legal pleas with necessary evidence before the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as envisaged under Indian Stamp Act 1899 and in the manner known to law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is directed to provide an ample opportunity to the petitioner herein and to consider the said appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of 45 days therefrom.

¶25

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar
sg
1. The Joint -I Sub Registrar
Office of the Sub Registrar
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015
2. The District Revenue Officer(Stamps)
District Collectorate Office
M.Singaravelar Maligai 5 th Floor
32, Rajaji Salai
Chennai-600 001
+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 7159

¶27

W.P.No.11714 of 2003 BKY(CO) sra 12.02.2010

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.M.Gowri v. JOINT-1 Sub-Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.M.Gowri v. JOINT-1 Sub-Registrar

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

D.Selvasingh Vs the Secretary

Krupa Oonamutror Maruvalvu Vs the State Rep by Its

K.P.Jimla Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Valliammal Vs the Block Development Officer

M. Ganesan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co.Op.

E.Rajamanickam Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu Rep