Disposed

A.Marudaiyah Pillai v. 1.DT.COLLECTOR

Madras HC11 Nov 2013WP/35176/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coram Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu disposed of three writ petitions filed under Article 226 challenging proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. The court directed petitioners to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 47(A)(5) within three weeks before any further proceedings, treating the statutory appeal as the alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 47(A)(5) within 3 weeks.

A.Marudaiyah Pillai Vs 1.DT.COLLECTOR — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 11.11.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

WP.Nos.35176, 35979 & 36026/2003 & WPMP.No.42758/2003 in WP.No.35176/2003 and WPMP.No.43738/2003 in WP.No.36026/2003

¶6

1.A.Marudaiyah Pillai
2.Lakshmi
3.M.Naresh
4.M.Kumar [minor] .. Petitioners
in WP.No.35176/2003
(Petitioners 2 to 4 were substituted by this Court
vide order dated 07.11.2013 in WPMP.No.250/2013)
Minor R4 rep.by mother and natural guardian
R1
A.Paramasivan .. Petitioner in
WP.No.35979/2003
K.Jayanthi .. Petitioner
in WP.No.36026/2003
Versus
1.The District Collector
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Srirangam Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Special Deputy Collector
Stamp Duty, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Sub Registrar
Srirangam, Nangavaram. ..
Respondents in all the WPs

¶7

Prayer in WP.No.35176/2003:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in PA Mu.S.R.No.5473/2002 dated 05.09.2003 issued by the 3^rd respondent purported to have been issued u/s.47A[1] of the

¶8

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

¶9

Indian Stamp Act and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the sale deed dated 06.05.1999 registered as Doc.No.314/1999 with the office of the 4^th respondent.

¶10

Prayer in WP.No.35979/2003:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in PA Mu.S.R.No.5474/2002 dated 05.09.2003 issued by the 3^rd respondent purported to have been issued u/s.47A[1] of the Indian Stamp Act and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the sale deed dated 06.05.1999 registered as Doc.No.313/1999 with the office of the 4^th respondent.

¶11

Prayer in WP.No.36026/2003:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in PA Mu.S.R.No.5472/2002 dated 05.09.2003 issued by the 3^rd respondent purported to have been issued u/s.47A[1] of the Indian Stamp Act and quash the same and direct the respondents to release the sale deed dated 06.05.1999 registered as Doc.No.315/1999 with the office of the 4^th respondent.

¶12

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved against the proceedings issued under section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Consequently, they sought for a direction to the respondents to release the sale deeds dated dated 06.05.1999 registered as Doc.Nos.313, 314 and 315/1999.

¶13

2.It is seen that as against the orders passed under section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, an appeal is maintainable before the Appellate Authority as contemplated under section 47(A)(5) of the said Act.

¶14

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the very initiation of the proceedings by the original authority is beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the petitioners need not go before the Appellate Authority questioning the said orders.

¶15

4.Needless to say that the question of limitation is not only the question of law but also the question of fact. It is for the petitioners to establish the said fact before the Appellate

¶16

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

¶17

Authority by raising all the grounds raised in these writ petitions. Once the appeal remedy is available, more particularly, in fiscal matters, it is to be exhausted first before resorting to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

5.Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits and the contentions of the rival parties, I only direct the petitioners to file appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 47(A)(5) of the said Act within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As and when any such appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the limitation for filing such appeal. It is further made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Appellate Authority including the ground of limitation against the orders of the original authority passed under 47(A) of the Act. With these observation, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶19

Sd
Assistant Registrar
/true Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1.The District Collector
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Tahsildar,
Srirangam Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Special Deputy Collector
Stamp Duty, Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Sub Registrar
Srirangam, Nangavaram.

¶20

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

¶21

+1 CC to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate vide Sr.No.58581/13 +1 CC to Mr.Sakthivel, Government Pleader Sr.NO.58686/13

¶22

CO-CNR

¶23

ths : 28.11.2013

¶24

WP.Nos.35176, 35979 & 36026/2003 and WP.MP.Nos.42758/2003 and 43738/2003

¶25

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

A.Marudaiyah Pillai v. 1.DT.COLLECTOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Marudaiyah Pillai v. 1.DT.COLLECTOR

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

State Express Transport Vs Presiding Officer

Subbian Vs the Presiding Officer

K.Sundaragopal Vs the District Elementary

Joseph Jayaraj Vs the Presiding Officer

Batco Roadways Corporation, Vs 1.R.DEIVANAYAGAM

The Clasic Farms (Chennai) Ltd. Vs the Union of India