Sivasubramaniam Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of order dated 27.09.2024 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Dharani

¶14

for Mr.K.Myilsamy

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice

¶21

dated 27.09.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent seeking for the recovery of the deficit stamp duty from the petitioners.

¶22

Heard Mr.B.Dharani for Mr.K.Myilsamy, learned counsel for

¶23

petitioner and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

¶24

The 3^rd petitioner filed a partition suit in OS No.367 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tharapuram. This suit ended in a compromise and a compromise decree was passed on 30.09.1996. Pursuant to the same, a partition deed dated 10.08.2023 was entered into between the parties and it was presented for registration and this document was also registered on the file of the 3^rd respondent as document No.3376 of 2023.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioners is that the 3^rd respondent has issued

¶26

2/5

¶27

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

¶28

the impugned notice stating that there is a deficit stamp duty payable by the petitioners and hence, directed the petitioners to pay the amount and to surrender the original documents for making necessary entries. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

¶29

In the considered view of this Court, if there is any deficit stamp duty levied against the petitioners, it is the District Registrar, who can initiate proceedings under section 33 A of the Stamp Act. That apart, if the proceedings itself is initiated based on any audit report, a copy of the report must also be given to the petitioners to enable them to give an effective reply. The 3^rd respondent cannot issue such a notice and such a notice issued by the 3^rd respondent is beyond the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

In the light of the above discussion, the impugned notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 27.09.2024 is hereby quashed. Liberty is granted to the 2^nd respondent to issue a fresh notice under Section 33A of the Stamp Act along with the Audit report which forms the basis for such a notice and on receipt of the same, it is left open to the petitioners to give their reply and work out their

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

remedy in accordance with law.

¶34