Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1993 (MAD)

Inspector of Registration, Chennai v. A. L. Ramu

2024-08-19

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, P.VELMURUGAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : P. VELMURUGAN, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this Court to set aside the order of this Court made in W.P. (MD) No. 2238 of 2016, dated 12.7.2017. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of this Court made in W.P. (MD) No. 2238 of 2016, dated 12.7.2017. 2. The respondent/Writ Petitioner purchased the land and the sale deed, dated 12.11.2014 was presented for registration before the fourth appellant, the fourth appellant after registering the same on 12.12.2014 and referred the documents under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act stating that the property was under-valued and proper stamp duty was not paid and he referred the matter to the third appellant. The respondent/Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants 3 and 4 herein to return the sale deed, dated 12.11.2014 in Document No. 2988 of 2014 to Writ Petitioner therein. After hearing both sides, the Writ Court passed the following order: “7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following conditions: (i) The Registering Authority while releasing the document shall make necessary endorsement on the original document to the effect that the proceedings under Sections 47-A of the Act are pending. (ii) The Registering Authority shall make necessary entries in the Register maintained regarding the pendency of 47-A proceedings in respect of the document which is subject-matter of the registration, so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate for the benefit of the purchasers. (iii) Pending final decision, in respect of the valuation under Section 47-A(I), as per Section 47-A(4), there shall be a charge over the properties in favour of the Government in respect of the unpaid value of the stamp duty. (iv) After the entire proceedings under Section 47-A are completed, on production of the original document by the Petitioner, the Registering Authority shall make necessary endorsement removing the earlier endorsement clearly stating that the entire amount of stamp duty under the document has been paid in full and return the same. (v) After such endorsement, the Registering Authority shall make necessary entry as to the completion of 47-A proceedings in the Register maintained by them so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate. (v) After such endorsement, the Registering Authority shall make necessary entry as to the completion of 47-A proceedings in the Register maintained by them so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate. No costs.” Challenging the same, now the respondents in the writ Petition filed the present Writ Appeal. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the Writ Court passed an order on 12.07.2017 as if the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act is pending, but whereas the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act was decided even prior to the disposal of the Writ Petition i.e. on 5.2.2016 itself. Since the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Writ Court, the Writ Court passed an order on certain conditions as mentioned above and even otherwise, the Writ Court has no authority to direct the Registering authorities to return the document and since the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act was completed, the authorities have every right to recover the said amount from the Writ Petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act and he has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 2017 (6) CTC 449 in the case of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and Another vs. M. Alfred and Others and the relevant portion reads as under: “13.A Registering Authority, after receiving an instrument of conveyance, while registering the same, if he has a reason to believe that the Market Value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, may, after registering such instrucment, reer it to the Collector for fixing the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Therefore, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registering Authority is duty bound to register the document. If there is no reason to believe that there is undervaluation, then the instrument will have to be released. On the contrary, if there is a reason to believe that there is undervaluation, he has to refer it to the Collector after duly recording the reasons. 14. The important issue in this case is the reference with respect to the instrument. In other words, it is the instrument, which is liable to be referred. After all, the value is set forth only in the instrument. 14. The important issue in this case is the reference with respect to the instrument. In other words, it is the instrument, which is liable to be referred. After all, the value is set forth only in the instrument. While undertaking the exercise of reference, the Registering Authority is expected to act within a reasonable time, though no time limit is prescribed, as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in Karmegam G. vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar-IV, Madurai, 2007 (5) CTC 737 (FB), if no reference is made within a reasonable period and the document is not released, it is for the Court to consider the same on the facts of the case and pass appropriate orders, including the question of handing over the instrument. Suffice it is to state, once a reference is made by a Registering Authority, then he becomes a functus officio. His role gets terminated. To put it differently, there is no mandate on the Registering Authority to give a registered document to the party while referring to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act. This interpretation of Section 47-A has not been dealt with by the Court except a casual observation in Krishnan M. vs. The District Collector, Erode District, 1998 (3) CTC 366 .” 4. The learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioner would submit that the appellants have no authority to retain the document and they can only recover the amount and that the charge is only against the property and not against the document and therefore, if at all, they have any claim, they can proceed with the same in the manner known to law to recover the amount and not to retain the document and seek for the dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 5. Admittedly, the respondent herein/Writ Petitioner presented the sale deed, dated 12.11.2014 for registration with the fourth appellant and the fourth appellant after registration, had referred the matter to the third appellant under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act and the third appellant herein has passed an order on 5.2.2016 itself stating that the property was under-valued and the stamp duty was not properly paid. But the same has not been challenged by the respondent, however, the same was also not brought to the knowledge of the Writ Court at the time of passing the order. But the same has not been challenged by the respondent, however, the same was also not brought to the knowledge of the Writ Court at the time of passing the order. Hence the Writ Court passed an order on certain conditions cited supra under the impression that Section 47-A proceedings was pending. However, a perusal of the order produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, it is seen that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act was completed and an order was passed on 5.2.2016 itself. Still now the respondent/Writ Petitioner has not paid the differential amount. There is no record to show that the respondent/Writ Petitioner has paid the differential amount towards the deficit stamp duty and that the appellants herein are having power to recover the said amount from the respondent under Revenue Recovery Proceedings. 6. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondent/Writ Petitioner to pay the difference of stamp duty as already decided in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act to the appellants within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such remittance by the respondent, the appellants are directed to release the document in question, forthwith. 7. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.