Dismissed

Mrs. Mahadevi v. District Revenue Officer

Madras HC4 Aug 2017WP/14917/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a reference under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act regarding a sale deed. The court held the petition to be infructuous as the petitioner had already paid the deficit stamp duty and fees under the Samadhan Scheme, and the document was delivered to her.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Mrs. Mahadevi Vs District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.08.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.14917 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.Nos.17702 & 17703 of 2004

¶6

Mrs.Mahadevi ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
Singaravelar Maaligai,
32, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.

¶7

The Sub-Registrar of Registration,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent order in Ta.Ka.11/2004/A2 dated 09.03.2004 and quash the same consequently forbearing the respondents from proceeding under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act with respect to the petitioner's document No.103/2002 on the file of the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Bakathavatchalam (No appearance)

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balamurugan Government Advocate

¶11

ORDER

¶12

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶13

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the reference under section 47(A)(1) of Indian Stamp Act of the sale deed dated 05.02.2004 which was presented for registration by her.

¶14

3.Today, the learned Counsel for the respondent placed before this Court proceedings dated 05.10.2007 bearing No.137/2007 sent by the respondents to the Government Pleaders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Office informing them that subsequent to reference under

¶15

Section 47(A)(1), the petitioner paid the deficit Stamp Duty and Registration Fees on 28.04.2005 under the Samadhan Scheme in G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated 28.11.2004 and collected the document on 28.04.2005 itself.

¶16

4.According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, as the document has been delivered to the petitioner nothing survives in this writ petition and it has become infructuous. This Court is also of the same view. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶17

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Pam
To
1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
Singaravelar Maaligai,
32, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
2. The Sub-Registrar of Registration,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 018.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 56448.
+1 CC to Mr.J. Saravanavel, Advocate sr 56111.
W.P.No.14917 of 2004
and W.P.M.P.Nos.17702 & 17703 of 2004
SP(22/08/2017)

¶18

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

Mrs. Mahadevi v. District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Mahadevi v. District Revenue Officer

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

Ramanujam Vs the Secretary to Government

Amman Brick Works Rep.by Vs the Nolambur Panchayat Rep.by

K.Ravi Vs the Tamilnadu Public Service

John Kennedy Vs Tamilnadu State Transport

C. Ramachandran Vs the Chairman (Principle

M. Ebinezer Vs the Executive Engineer, Public