Partly allowed

Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy v. The Inspector General Stamps and Registration

Telangana HC3 Dec 2010WP/23487/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging refusal to register documents. Relying on the Registrar's own admission of timely presentation, the court held the Registrar was estopped from denying the submission period. While findings on stamp duty adjudication remained inconclusive due to contradictory departmental records, the court directed the Registry to treat the documents as wit

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to register documents treating them as presented within limitation and to communicate decision on possible deficit stamp duty within one month.

Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy Vs The Inspector General… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.24818 of 2009 & 23487 of 2010

¶6

W.P.No.24818 of 2009 Between:

¶7

Smt. Molugu Shyamala.

¶8

..... Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District (East) at L.B. Nagar & another.

¶11

.....Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy (Party-in-person in W.P.No.23487/09) Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.24818 of 2009 & 23487 of 2010

¶15

COMMON ORDER:

¶16

Since these two Writ Petitions raised common issues and apart from the fact that they pertain to the common property, they are being disposed of together.

¶17

Writ Petition No.24818 of 2009 is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo Nos.185, 220 and 226 of 2009, dated 09.09.2009, 03.11.2009 and 06.11.2009 respectively of respondent No.2.

¶18

Writ Petition No.23487 of 2010 is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not registering and releasing the pending documents vide P.No.108 to 116 of 2009, as illegal and arbitrary. A consequential direction has been sought to respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in accordance with law and also for a direction to the said respondents to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him on account of non-registration and non-releasing of the documents.

¶19

I have heard Dr. M. Sharath Chandra Reddy, petitioner in Writ Petition No.23487 of 2010 and GPA Holder of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.24818 of 2009 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶20

The petitioner in Writ Petition No.24818 of 2009 is no other than the mother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.23487 of 2010. The dispute raised in these two Writ Petitions pertains to non-registration of the documents submitted by the petitioners for registration by respondent No.3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the entire dispute revolves around two aspects, namely; whether the petitioners have submitted the documents for registration within the time stipulated

¶21

under the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the 1908”) or not and whether determination was made under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the 1899 Act”) on the proper stamp duty payable on the documents. The whole lot of correspondence ensued between the party-in-person and respondent No.3 is in connection with these two aspects. For the purpose of disposal of these Writ Petitions, it is not necessary to refer to the entire correspondence. It will suffice to refer to Memo No.138 of 2010, dated 22.07.2010 of respondent No.3, which, in my opinion, completely clinches the two issues referred to above. It is useful to

¶22

reproduce the same hereinbelow.

¶23

“Apropos to your request letter dated 21.07.2010, it is to inform you that you submitted an application in view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P.No.1282 of 2009 dated 24.09.2009 stating that there was no delay in presentation of the documents vide Nos.P.108/2009 to P.116/2009 as per the section 23 of the Registration Act. The said fact was not considered in the earlier orders passed refusing the registration of the pending document Nos.P.108/2009 to P.116/2009, and as per section 31 such request to register and release the above said pending documents and otherwise you will initiate contempt proceedings. Even though the above said documents were presented within limitation and the stamp duty was paid as per section 31 as stated above, on review it is found that there is deficit of stamp duty. However, once again it is to inform you that the said documents were refused earlier on the ground that they were time barred. Therefore, the said documents can’t be released until and unless favourable orders issued from higher officers.” (Emphasis added)

¶24

In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.23487 of 2010, he resiled from the stand taken by him in the above reproduced Memo. He has maintained that there is a deficit stamp duty for which he has to get orders from the higher officials and that he never intended to admit that the documents were presented by the

¶25

petitioners within the time stipulated under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act.

¶26

In my opinion, respondent No.3 has completely taken a volteface from the stand taken by him in his above discussed memo. The plain language of the Memo does not admit of any other view than his clear and unequivocal admission that the petitioners have presented the documents within the period of limitation and that the stamp duty was paid as per Section 31. It is therefore totally incomprehensible that having given such a memo, respondent No.3 has taken a complete ‘U’ turn and stated that he never made any such admission in his Memo. While there is no dispute that every party, who seeks registration of the documents, is under the obligation to adhere to the time limit stipulated under the provisions of Sections 23 and 25, on the own admission of respondent No.3, they were presented within the time and having made such a categorical admission, he is estopped from taking a different stand in the counter affidavit.

¶27

The law is well settled that a statutory authority cannot improve upon what was already stated in the contemporaneous correspondence by way of affidavits. (see Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) and Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (AIR 1978 SC 851).

¶28

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have presented the documents within the stipulated time limit.

¶29

Coming to the dispute relating to adjudication of stamp duty, while it is the stand of the petitioners that their liability for payment of stamp duty was adjudicated by respondent No.2, they have not filed any documents in support of thereof. However, in the abovementioned memo, respondent No.3 has admitted that stamp duty was paid as per

¶30

Section 31, as claimed by the petitioners and that he has undertaken a review on which deficit stamp duty was found payable. Even on this aspect, respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to go back. In order to verify whether such adjudication was made, I have called for the record from respondent No.2.

¶31

Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed letter dated 01.12.2010 addressed to the learned Government Pleader, wherein it is mentioned that no application was filed by the party-in-person for adjudication on stamp duty in respect of the pending documents and that as his office has not received any application with reference to the said subject there is no record available on the adjudication of the stamp duty in respect of the documents in question. There is thus a clear contradiction in the stands taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Though in ordinary course I would have accepted the stand taken by respondent No.3 in the abovementioned memo, having regard to the above communication of respondent No.2, I refrain from rendering conclusive findings on this aspect.

¶32

In the light of the discussion undertaken above, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the following terms.

¶33

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the documents for registration treating them as having been presented within limitation. If he is of the opinion that proper stamp duty is not paid, he shall take steps in accordance with the provisions of the 1899 Act within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and communicate his decision accordingly to the petitioners.

¶34

Subject to the above directions, both the writ petitions are partly

¶35

allowed.

¶36

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petitions in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.32320 of 2009 and WVMP.No.4039 of 2009 in W.P.No.24818 of 2009 and WPMP.No.30064 of 2010 in W.P.No.23487 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶37

____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2010 ES

Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy v. The Inspector General Stamps and Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.Sharath Chandra Reddy v. The Inspector General Stamps and Registration

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Aseervadam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

S. Upesh Singh Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally

M/s. Stanley Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch. Shankaraiah Vs The Collector (Cs)

Ch.Venkata Ranga Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

Yenke Chandra Sekhar Vs The District Collector