Allowed

K.Vijaya Lakshmi, v. the District Registrar

Madras HC13 Dec 2024WP(MD)/10625/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a notice for alleged deficit stamp duty. The court set aside the order because the respondents failed to obtain or serve the mandatory certificate under Section 33-A of the Stamp Act. The notice relied solely on an audit report without verifying under-valuation or following proper appeal procedures before the Chief Cont

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the second respondent is set aside and quashed.

K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs the District Registrar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8112 and 8113 of 2017

¶7

K.Vijayalakshmi

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

1.The District Registrar, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶10

2.The Sub-Registrar, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the second respondent vide document No.2424/2014 dated 03.05.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to remove the encumbrance made on the document No.2424/2014 dated 18.09.2014.

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice passed by the second respondent vide document No.2424/2014 dated 03.05.2017 under which a claim had been made as if there was a loss or deficit stamp duty with an observation that the document could be sent for further process under Section 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that she had executed a release deed in Document No.2424/2014 on 18.09.2014 in favour of her father-in-law. However, the present impugned order had been passed. He would submit that the release deed cannot be referred to under Section 47-A(3) of the Act and that the petitioner had also paid the necessary charges as required. Furthermore, the impugned notice does not specify the

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶24

provisions of law under which it was issued. He would submit that with reference to insufficiently stamped document, the respondents can invoke the provisions under Section 33-A of the Act for which a certificate of District Registrar concerned should have been obtained. He would further submit that a reference under Section 47-A(3) requires an indication that the property has been undervalued. However, the impugned order does not make any such allegation regarding the under-valuation of the property. Therefore, he would submit that this Court should interfere with the impugned order.

¶25

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶26

respondents submitted that the impugned order was issued based on audit objections raised during the audit process. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is without authority. He would further submit that the petitioner paid only Rs.25,000/- towards stamp duty and registration, whereas the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,96,400/- as the appropriate stamp duty for the said document. Hence, the notice should be treated as one issued under Section 33-A of the Act.

¶27

3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶30

I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

By invoking the provisions of Section 33-A of the Act, a certificate from the District Registrar under the Registration Act ought to have been obtained for recovering the amount from the persons liable to pay the duty. However, in the present case, the reference is only to the audit conducted by the District Registrar Audits, and no certificate has been issued by the District Registrar concerned specifying the amount to be recovered from the persons liable. Moreover, no such certificate has been served on the petitioner. Had a certificate been issued, it would have been subject to an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. It is to be noted that such a certificate cannot be issued after a period of three years from the date of registration. In the present case, as noted earlier, the second respondent has relied solely on an audit report from the concerned Registrar of Audit for issuing the notice. However, no certificate as mandated under Section 33-A(1) has been served on the petitioner or produced before this Court. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶32

4/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶35

In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the second respondent is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

13.12.2024

¶37

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

¶38

To:

¶39

1.The District Registrar, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶40

2.The Sub-Registrar, Thiruvidaimarudur, Thanjavur District.

¶41

5/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶44

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶45

Nsr

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.10625 of 2017

¶47

13.12.2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

6/6

K.Vijaya Lakshmi, v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijaya Lakshmi, v. the District Registrar

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

P.Periyalagi, W/O.Periyamannan Vs the Chief Engineer

V.Anburaj, S/O.Velusamy, Vs the Joint Director of Health

P.Lakshmanan Vs the Executive Engineer

Veeramalai, Vs K.v.Muralidharan

Md.Spl 109 Valandur Primary Vs the Join Registrar of Co-Op.

S.Kandasamy Vs The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer