Disposed

A.Chithambaram v. The Direct Revenue Officer

Madras HC17 Feb 2017WP/4006/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the District Revenue Officer to determine the requisite stamp duty for an agricultural land sale deed as expeditiously as possible, within 12 weeks, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, pending the adjudication of a reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to determine the requisite stamp duty within 12 weeks, after affording opportunity to the petitioner.

A.Chithambaram Vs The Direct Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 17.02.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.4006 of 2017

¶6

A.Chithambaram .. Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office (Stamp Paper) District Collector Office, Singaravelan Maligai, No.32, Rajaji Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar's Office, Tiruvallur. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.10.2016 to return the document No.3086 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Registrar at Tiruvallur. For petitioner : Mr.P.Gopalakrishnan For respondents : Mr.S.Duraisolaimalai, Additional Government Pleader ORDER Mr.S.Duraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

According to the petitioner, he has presented a Sale Deed for registration in respect of the agricultural land purchased at Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur Taluk, Kancheepuram Registration District, Tiruvallur Sub-Registration District, within the limit of Ikkadu Panchayat Union No.53, Othikkadu Village, Survey No.165/2 South side Acre 0.61 cents out of Acre 0.91 cents of Agricultural land. Though the Sale Deed has been registered as Doc.No.3086 of 2016 and receipt was also issued by the second respondent, the registered document has not been returned to the petitioner. Therefore, the

¶10

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

¶11

petitioner has made a representation on 27.10.2016 requesting the respondents to return the Registered Document No.3086 of 2016. As such, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation of the petitioner.

¶12

The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that said document has been referred to the first respondent under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The aforesaid reference is pending before the first respondent for adjudication.

¶13

Considering the nature and limited scope of the prayer made, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the reference made by the second respondent dated 7.9.2016 under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act to determine the requisite stamp duty of the document presented by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity to the petitioner.

¶14

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above direction. No costs. sd/ Assistant Registrar /true copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar asvm To 1.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office (Stamp Paper) District Collector Office, Singaravelan Maligai, No.32, Rajaji Road, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar's Office, Tiruvallur. +1cc to Mr.R.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate SR.No.10556 W.P.No.4006 of 2017 RK(CO) GN(03/03/2017)

¶15

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

A.Chithambaram v. The Direct Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chithambaram v. The Direct 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

M.Vinayagam, Vs the Director

Y.Prakash, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Prabhakaran, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Adaikalam Vs the Secretary to Government

Sandhya, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

S.Thiyagu, S/O.M.Samikannu Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by