State appellants challenged a writ court order directing release of registered documents pending Section 47-A Indian Stamp Act proceedings. Relying on the Division Bench's M.Alfred decision and the Supreme Court's K.Baskaran holding that time limits are directory, this Division Bench set aside the common writ court order and allowed the writ appeals.
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.
2024:MHC:2243
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Writ Appeal Nos.697 to 710 of 2013 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
W.A. No.697 of 2013 and
M.P. No.1 of 2013
Vs.
Kanchana S/o. Krishnachand Chordia ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.04.2008 made in W.P. No.33659 of 2007.
For Appellants : Mr. B. Vijay, [in all W.A's] Additional Government Pleader
Page No.1 of 11
For Respondent [in all W.A's]
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
: No appearance.
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
A batch of intra-court writ appeals have been instituted challenging the common order dated 21.04.2008, issuing directions to release the documents registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
Page No.2 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
of the Indian Stamp Act is not a bar for release of documents by creating a
charge on the documents. In this context, the writ court relied on the case of
M.Ponnusamy and 42 others Vs. The District Collector, Erode & Others).
Yet another case relied on by the writ court is that G.Karmegam and others Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Madurai (2007 (5) CTC 737). Relying on the above judgments, the writ court allowed the batch of writ petitions and issued directions to release the documents by creating charge with consequential directions. Aggrieved by said directions, the State preferred the present writ appeals.
Page No.3 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
the earlier judgments relied on by the writ court in the order impugned in the present writ appeals. The provisions, role of the Registering Authority, scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and release of documents during the pendency of 47-A proceedings were elaborately considered. The Division Bench in paragraph nos.16, 24 and 28 held as follows:
" 16. Section 47-A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act speaks about the charge. Such a charge is on the property mentioned in the instrument. The charge is not on the instrument, but on the property. Creating charge is one thing and release of document is another thing. However, the question for consideration is as to whether such a charge by itself give a right to get the document released, notwithstanding payment of duty determined. Keeping in mind the object of the enactment, necessarily we have to hold that no such right is available.
17 to 23……………….
24. Whether it is a question of impounding, deficit stamp duty or undervaluation, the result appears to be the same. What is determined by the Collector has to be paid. This determination is the duty payable on the instrument. These three are to be considered from the perspective of the revenue. Therefore one has to come to an irresistible conclusion that in the absence of any provision relating to release of document during the pendency and after adjudication, a Collector is not abound to do so.
Page No.4 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
25 to 27…………..
28. As discussed above, there is no question of return of the instrument by the Registering Authority, if a reference is made along with the instrument. In the absence of any provisions enabling the return of the instruments, the same cannot be given back. The provision for creating charge cannot be construed for an automatic release of the document. Even if we apply the principle of purposive and reasonable interpretation, the instrument cannot be released until and unless the duty determined is set aside or found to be wrong. In the light of discussions made above, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners cannot be accepted.”
held that there is no question of return of instruments by the Registering Authority, if a reference is made along with the instrument. In the absence of any provisions enabling the return of instruments, the same cannot be given back. However, the Division Bench formed an opinion that a time limit is to be fixed for the purpose of completing the adjudication and passing of orders under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Subsequently, necessary amendments were made in the Rules and Government issued G.O.Ms.No.174, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 28.11.2017, fixing the time limit of 15 days for reference of the instrument to the Collector by the
Page No.5 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
Registering Authority under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others vs. K.Baskaran reported in
(2020) 14 SCC 345 as follows:
" 32. We, therefore, hold the fixation of timeline of three months in Rule 7 to be purely directory. In the premises, the conclusion by the High Court holding the said provision to be mandatory is set aside, and no benefit on that ground can accrue to the respondents.
33 to 46………..
47. There is nothing in the scheme of the Act which purports to restrict the exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal. Unless the statute expressly or even by necessary implication restricts the exercise of power, there would be no occasion to read into the power, any other limitations. The High Court has not found the exercise of power
Page No.6 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
to be invalid on any count, nor was any such submission advanced before the High Court. The High Court had simple gone on the existence of power rather than on the exercise of power. It is not as if the assessment made by the appellate authority was either opposed to principles of natural justice, or was so palpably incorrect, that it could never be sustained. In our view, the High Court completely erred in setting aside the exercise of power undertaken by the authority concerned. The exercise of power was definitely designed to obviate an obvious illegality and prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. The exercise was, thus, absolutely correct, and there was no occasion to set aside the orders passed in pursuance thereof. We, therefore, answer question 3 accordingly.”
Page No.7 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
of non-completion of investigation or enquiry within the time limit would not be a ground to vitiate the entire proceedings. In such circumstances, if such serious proceedings are quashed merely on the ground of delay, it would result in mis-carriage of justice and injustice to the public cause. Therefore, the courts have adopted purposive interpretation to ensure that the objectives of the provisions of the Act are considered while forming an opinion that the time limit in the Act is directory or mandatory. However, in the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the time limit prescribed under the Rules are directory and not mandatory.
interpreted the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act and held that the return of instrument by the Registering Authority, if a reference is made cannot be claimed as a right. Only after disposal of the proceedings under Section 47-A, such right can be claimed in the manner contemplated under the Act and Rules. Regarding the time limit of 15 days also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is only directory and not mandatory.
Page No.8 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
order, which is under challenge cannot be sustained, in view of the legal position held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in M.Alfred's case and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.Baskaran . Consequently, the common order dated 21.04.2008, is set aside and this batch of Writ Appeals stand allowed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.M.S.,J.] [C.K.,J.] 05.06.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No veda
To
Page No.9 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
veda
Page No.10 of 11
W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
Judgment in W.A.Nos.697 to 710 of 2013
05.06.2024
Page No.11 of 11
2 issues framed by the court
Can registered documents be released while adjudication under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is pending?
Is the fixed time limit for reference under Section 47-A(1) mandatory or directory?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Ponnusamy and 42 others Vs. The District Collector, Erode & OthersReferred¶3
M.Ponnusamy and 42 others Vs. The District Collector, Erode & Others
G.Karmegam and others Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar, MaduraiReferred¶3
G.Karmegam and others Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Madurai (2007 (5) CTC 737)
Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and another Vs. M.Alfred and othersFollowed¶5
2017 (2) CWC 896
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and another Vs. K.RajeswariReferred¶4
W.A.No.1488 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017
Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others vs. K.BaskaranFollowed¶7
(2020) 14 SCC 345 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Singaravelan Maligai, Chennai-600 001
The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052
Kanchana S/o. Krishnachand Chordia
S.M.Subramaniam
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
