The court allows the writ petition quashing an order imposing additional stamp duty and remands the matter to the District Revenue Officer to pass fresh orders after considering relevant documents within three months.
Impugned order dated 18/8/2008 set aside and matter remanded to first respondent to pass fresh orders within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 4/11/2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
a n d
M.P.No.1 of 2008
H.M.Sultan Mohideen
Petitioner
Vs
... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 18/8/2008 passed in Na.Ka.C.Pa.16/06/A1 by
the first respondent and quash the same.
Page No:1/6
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Ramkumar for M/s.Varam Legal Counsel For respondents ... Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order, dated
18/8/2008 passed in Na.Ka.C.Pa.16/06/A1 by the first respondent
The property bearing No.24 (Old No.9), Rajasekara Mudaliar Road, Mylapore, measuring an extent of 3 grounds and 3 sq.ft belonged to Mr.S.Rajavel and his two minor sons. Likewise, property bearing Door No.3, Old Door No.60/6, Ninth Street, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4, belonged to Mr.S.Rajavel and his two minor sons. The said S.Rajavel is entitled to 16/24 shares and minors are entitled to 22/24 shares over the said property. The petitioner has purchased 16/24 shares in the property and it is the contention of the writ petitioner that the petitioner had
Page No:2/6
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
paid proper guideline value. Whereas the respondents have collected guideline value for Both the property abetting the street, where the petitioner has no access from the street i.e., from the vacant site. Hence sought to quash the impugned order passed under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Registrar's Office, Mylapore, on 10/5/2007, to enable the petitioner to get benefit of the scheme.
Page No:3/6
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
pay the additional stamp duty for Rs.11,76,360/-. After receiving the impugned order, petitioner had sent his objection. But in the impugned order, it is stated that no reply was received. This itself clearly proves that the said impugned order is passed with non-application of mind.
that the petitioner has not availed the benefit of Samadhan scheme, despite the notice sent, under Section 47 A of the said Act. Moreover, the first respondent has finalised the deficit stamp duty, under Section 47 A (1) of the said Act and there is no deviation.
Page No:4/6
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
dated 18/8/2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps)/first respondent for passing fresh orders, on consideration of the entire materials. The first respondent shall issue necessary notice to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner shall produce all the relevant document including the sale deed, dated 24/4/2006, for better appreciation. The said exercise shall be carried out, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
4/11/2022
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
mvs.
Page No:5/6
Writ Petition No.21984 of 2008
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
mvs.
To
Chennai 600 001.
W.P.No.21984 of 2008
4/11/2022
Page No:6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without following proper procedure devoid of application of mind, can be quashed.
Whether the first respondent is required to pass fresh orders on consideration of entire materials including the sale deed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
H.M.Sultan Mohideen
District Revenue Officer (Stamps)
Sub-Registrar
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
