Dismissed

H.Akthar Jan, v. the Inspector General of

Madras HC5 Aug 2013WP/932/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's plea to quash orders demanding deficit stamp duty and to avail the Samadhan scheme. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to remite the dues after notices were issued while the scheme was active or later, the claim to avail the scheme could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not granted opportunity to avail Samadhan scheme; no costs.

H.Akthar Jan, Vs the Inspector General of — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 5.8.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

Writ Petition No.932 of 2012

¶6

H.AKTHAR JAN [ PETITIONER ]

¶7

Vs
1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
REGISTRATION, CHENNAI-28.
2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER
(STAMPS)/ SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE OFFICE,
SALEM-636 001.
3 THE SUB-REGISTRAR
SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE
DADAGAPATTY, SALEM-636 006. [ RESPONDENTS ]

¶8

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relevant to the order in C.Pa.161/03/dated 23.11.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and in No.57753/N2/2011 dated 12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as totally illegal, improper, and arbitrary and against the order of G.O.Ms.NO.132 dated 31.10.2011 and against the natural justice and thereby direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to receive the deficit of stamp duty of 1/3 amounts from Rs.21,291/- in document No.1961/96 from the petitioner under the Scheme of Samadhan passed as per the G.O.Ms.No.132 dated 31.10.2011 and release the petitioner's document No.1961/96.

¶9

For petitioner : No Appearance

¶10

For respondents : Mr.R.Ravichandran AGP

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶14

It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased the property situated at Andipatti village, Salem District, from Smt.Shajamani, wife of Abdul Haffiz, by way of a registered Sale Deed registered on the file of the third respondent. The said Sale Deed had been registered as document No.1961/1996. The sale consideration was fixed as Rs.50,000/-. However, after the period of eight years, the office of the third respondent had re-assessed the value of the property and had informed the petitioner that the matter was being referred, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶15

It has also been stated that the office of the third respondent had sent a notice, dated 28.5.2004, requesting the petitioner to avail the Samadhan scheme, under which the petitioner could pay 60% of the stamp duty of Rs.19,866/- and 60% of Rs.1,425/-, as registration fees. The petitioner was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.21,291/-. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner had sent a reply to the office of the third respondent, on 14.2.2005, requesting the third respondent not to claim the deficit stamp duty, as the document in question had been registered in the year, 1996. However, there was no reply sent by the office of the third respondent. While so, the petitioner had sent a letter, on 19.10.2011, stating that she was ready to pay the deficit stamp duty as per the Samadhan scheme. The office of the third respondent had sent a reply, on 18.11.2011, stating that the petitioner should pay the entire amount claimed, as deficit stamp duty, for the period from 28.12.2004 to 27.3.2005, as the Samadhan scheme had expired. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent stating that the Samadhan scheme in question was in force, from 28.12.2004 to 27.3.2005. While so, The Sub- Registrar, Dadagapatti, had sent a notice to the petitioner directing her to pay Rs.21,291/-, instead of Rs.33,110/-, as per the Samadhan scheme provided by the Government. However, the writ petitioner did not avail the opportunity to pay the deficit stamp duty, as per the Samadhan scheme. Therefore, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), the second respondent herein, had sent a notice, dated 28.2.2006, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.27,543/-. Since, the petitioner had not remitted the said amount, a second notice had been issued, on 31.1.2007. Even thereafter, the writ petitioner had not appeared before the second respondent and no reply had been sent by her. Therefore, the case of the petitioner had been dealt with under the

¶17

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

¶18

provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and a notice, dated 23.11.2011, had been sent to the petitioner stating that if she fails to remit the deficit stamp duty dues, the said amount would be recovered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as Government dues. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that she should have been given an opportunity to pay the deficit stamp duty, as per the Samadhan scheme, which was in force, from 28.12.2004 to 27.3.2005, cannot be sustained.

¶19

In view of the avernments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner that she should have been given an opportunity to avail the Samadhan scheme, which was in force, from 28.12.2004 to 27.3.2005, cannot be sustained.

¶20

From the records available before this Court, it is noted that notices had been sent to the petitioner, from the office of the third respondent, as well as by the second respondent, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. The petitioner had also been informed by way of a notice, dated 28.5.2004, stating that she could avail the concession granted by the Government under the Samadhan scheme, which was in force, from 28.12.2004 to 27.3.2005. However, the petitioner had not availed the said opportunity. Even thereafter, the second respondent had sent a notice, dated 28.2.2006, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.27,543/-. There was no reply from the petitioner. Another notice, dated 31.1.2007, had been issued to the petitioner. Even thereafter, the writ petitioner had not remitted the deficit stamp duty, nor had she sent a reply to the notice. In such circumstances, a notice had been issued to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, for the recovery of the amount due to the Government. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.

¶21

lan

¶22

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

¶23

To:

¶24

1 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI-28.

¶25

2 THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER (STAMPS)/ SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE OFFICE, SALEM-636 001.

¶26

3 THE SUB-REGISTRAR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE DADAGAPATTY, SALEM-636 006.

¶27

+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 41237

¶28

KJI(CO) km/5.9.

¶29

Writ Petition No.932 of 2012

¶30

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

H.Akthar Jan, v. the Inspector General of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Akthar Jan, v. the Inspector General of

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

S.Kavitha Vs the Manager

R.Murugesan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramakrishna Vidyalaya Vs the Director of Matriculation

Pollachi Municipal Employees Vs State of Tamil Nadu

R.Amuthavalli Vs the District Collector

R.Rakesh Kumar, Vs the Manager