Dismissed

Jeyaleela Carunia v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Feb 2019WP(MD)/1973/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order demanding deficit stamp duty and seeking release of a seized sale deed. The Court applied the principle that registration date determines market value. It dismissed the petition but directed respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 47A(1) within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction to initiate proceedings under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act within six months; no costs.

Jeyaleela Carunia Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.02.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN WP(MD)No.1973 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶3

Jeyaleela Carunia ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The District Collector, O/o. District Collector,

¶6

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶7

2.Deputy Collector (Stamps), District Collector Office,

¶8

Madurai District.

¶9

3.The District Registrar (Administration),

¶10

(Assistant Registration Head),

¶11

Madurai South, Madurai District.

¶12

4.The Joint Sub Registrar,

¶13

(Additional Incharge), Madurai South, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication in Na.Ka.No.5095/R1/2014 dated 30.09.2014 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents herein to release the sale deed registered on 03.02.2012 in favor in receipt No.P57/2012.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner questions the impugned communication dated 30.09.2014 issued by the fourth respondent demanding payment of deficit stamp duty. The document presented for registration has not been returned also. It has been impounded. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had entered into a sale agreement with her vendor in the year 1992 and that after the getting the decree got the document executed in her favour. Now, the question is which would be the relevant date for determining the market value of the property for the purpose of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stamp duty.

¶18

2.The petitioner's case is that the date of sale agreement

¶19

¶20

would be the relevant date. Unfortunately, there has been a march of law though this was the original position held by the courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 14 SCC 339 (State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers) had held that a market value prevailing at the time of registration alone would be the relevant date and that one should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument.

¶21

3.In view of the above legal position, relief cannot be given to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the competent authority to determine the deficit stamp duty would only be the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and not the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner is right. Then, the impugned communication will have to be treated as a ground for not releasing the document. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that in such matters the document should be impounded and not released till the proceedings under Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act are finalised.

¶22

4.Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents to refer the matter under Section 47 A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act at the earliest, in any event, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

// True Copy //

Skm

1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI.

¶27

2.THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(STAMPS) DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶28

3.THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION),

¶29

(ASSISTANT REGISTRATION HEAD), MADURAI SOUTH, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶30

4.THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, (ADDITIONAL INCHARGE), MADURAI SOUTH, MADURAI.

¶31

1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-44958[F] dated 05/02/2019 )

¶32

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

¶33

WP(MD)No.1973 of 2015 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2015 04.02.2019

¶34

DS/ /SAR- (25.03.2019) 2P 6C

Jeyaleela Carunia v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyaleela Carunia v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.G.Shankar, Vs Belics John Baskaran

Sumathi, W/O.Kanagasabapathy, Vs Elango, S/O.Ponnaiah

Murugapandi Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Santhanam, S/O.Gopalan, Vs the District Collector

Anbarasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Happy(Hygiene Awareness Vs the Commissioner