Disposed

P. Saravanan v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC9 Jun 2022WP/20104/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court restored a writ petition challenging Section 47A proceedings for registration of a settlement deed due to alleged delay and lack of hearing. The petition is disposed of by directing the Revenue Officer to conclude proceedings after granting an opportunity to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on directions to conclude 47A proceedings after granting opportunity of hearing and permitting submission of RTI information.

P. Saravanan Vs the District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.06.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.20104 of 2007

¶6

and WMP.No.15208 of 2022

P.Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1. 2. The District Collector, 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1. 3. The Sub Registrar, Thiruporur 603 110 Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 4. The Inspector General (I.G), Registration Department, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28. 5. The Secretary, Government of tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9. ...Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the first and second respondents permanently from conducting any proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued in Form I no.113/06/D6/2006 dt 20./09/2006. For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Somayajulu, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Perumal For Respondents : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Special Government Pleader

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the first and second respondents permanently from conducting any proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued in Form I no.113/06/D6/2006 dt 20./09/2006.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the first and second respondents permanently from conducting any proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dt 20./09/2006.

¶14

Earlier, this Writ Petition was dismissed for non prosecution and now the petitioner has filed the above said Writ Miscellaneous Petition in WMP.NO.15208 of 2022 with 108 days of delay, for restoration of this Writ Petition. Being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit, this Court is hereby condoned the delay and also ordered the Writ Miscellaneous Petition for restoration of the main Writ Petition and further this Court is also inclined to take up the matter for final disposal and disposed of the same by the following order.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the Settlement Deed was executed in favour of his sister-in-law viz., Sundari Gunasekaran and the same was submitted at the Sub Registrar Office at Thiruporur, for registering the document. After registering the document, the Sub Registrar referred the document to the Collector under Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act for determination of the market value. On receipt of a reference under 47(A), the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) issued a show cause notice in Form I No.113/06/D6/2006 dated 20.09.2006 under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under Valudation of Instruments) Rules,1968 and in that show cause notice, the guideline value was indicated as Rs.2.61 crores and further a stamp duty of Rs.17.68 lakhs was demanded. It is alleged by the petitioner that according to Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, the Collector had to pass an order determining the market value within '3 month' from the date of first notice and thereby, the final order should have been passed on or before 20.12.2006, however till day even an opportunity of personal hearing had not been granted and therefore, no authority prescribed under the Act has a jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned proceedings initiated by the 3^rd respondent by referring the Settlement Deed submitted for registration to the Collector under Section 47(A) and further continued the said proceedings by the 1^st respondent by issuing the show cause notice in Form I, is liable to be dropped.

¶16

Though very many grounds have been raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, he submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues direction to the 1^st respondent to conclude proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, after providing opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the proceedings within a reasonable time as fixed by this Court and may also permit the petitioner to produce the

¶17

document issued by the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, dated 24.10.2006, indicating the Guideline value of the property, to the 1^st respondent to enable him to pass appropriate orders.

¶18

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents has no serious objection for the said order being passed.

¶19

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the impugned show cause notice issued in Form I under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules, 1968. However, this Court considering the fair submission made by the learned Senior Counsel, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is inclined to issue direction to the 1^st respondent to conclude the 47A proceedings, after providing opportunity to the petitioner and this Court also permits the petitioner to produce the information obtained under the Rights to Information Act, from the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, dated 25.10.2006 before the 1^st respondent, to enable him to arrive at a conclusion.

¶20

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1.

¶28

The District Collector, 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1.

¶29

The Sub Registrar, Thiruporur 603 110 Chengalpet Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

¶30

The Inspector General (I.G), Registration Department, 120, Santhome High Road, Chennai 28.

¶31

The Secretary, Government of tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 9.

¶32

+2cc to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, S.R.No.33391,33548

¶33

W.P.No.20104 of 2007

¶34

CA(CO) CT/28/07/2022

P. Saravanan v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Saravanan v. the 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

N.Ashok Kumar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

V.S.Natarajhan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.Karthikeyan (Deceased), Vs the District Collector

M.Arumugam, Vs The Tahsildhar

E.Sathyapriya, Vs The Sub-Registrar

R.Munivenkatappa, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu