Dismissed

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. G.Vijayakumar

Madras HC23 Jul 2015WA/868/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order directing the Sub Registrar to return a registered sale deed referred for fresh adjudication under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The two-judge bench held that once registered, a document cannot be retained and upheld the conditions ensuring fee recovery. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed and the consequently connected miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

The Revenue Divisional Officer Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.07.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

W.A.No.868 of 2015

and

M.P.No.1 of 2015

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Stamps) District Collector Office Building, Coimbatore-18.

¶11

2.The Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District. .. Appellants/Respondents Vs. G. Vijayakumar .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶12

This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this court dated 07.01.2015 made in W.P.No.15578 of 2014 filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's original sale deed release the Petitioner's original sale deed dated 06.11.2012 registered as document No.1725 of 2014 on the file of the second Respondent forthwith by considering the Petitioner's representation dated 17.04.2014.

¶13

For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Spl.G.P.

¶14

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 07.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.15578 of 2014.

¶15

2 The writ petitioner (respondent herein) preferred a writ petition, seeking a direction to the second respondent, i.e., the second appellant herein, to release the sale deed in Document No.1725 of 2014 dated 17.04.2014.

¶16

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

¶17

3 The learned Single Judge, noticing the fact that the said document was registered as document No.1725 of 2014 dated 17.04.2014, directed the second respondent therein to return the document with an endorsement that a reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act has been made for fresh adjudication.

¶18

4 It is a well settled principle of law that once the document has been duly registered, the same cannot be retained by the Registering Authority even if the same has been referred for a fresh adjudication. The learned Single Judge had directed to return the said document subject to certain conditions. We have examined those conditions. The said conditions provides sufficient safeguard to ensure recovery of fee, as and when occasion arises, if any.

¶19

5 In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the order sought to be impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ra
To
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer (Stamps)
District Collector Office Building,
Coimbatore-18.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Mettupalayam Sub Registrar Office,
Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, sr.37630
W.A.No.868 of 2015
jsv(co)
kra(04/08)

¶21

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

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. G.Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Revenue Divisional Officer v. G.Vijayakumar

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

All India Council for Vs John Bosco Polytechnic College

The Joint Sub Registrar II Vs Dr.Jannathul Alia

Dr.R.Selvakumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

S.Gnanavadivu Vs M/s.Abdul Azeez Son &

M.Malliga, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Dhanalakshmi Vs The Government of Tamilnadu