AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the
Respondents to release the document bearing document No. 1999 of 2005, on the file of the third Respondent, relating to the property comprised
in R.S. No. 84/5B, having an extent of 0.66 acres.
It has been stated that the Petitioner had purchased an extent of 0.66 acres of land, in R.S. No. 84/5B,for the sale consideration of Rest.
27,06,000/-, under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 1999 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, the third Respondent
herein. However, the said document had not been released, as it had been referred for an enquiry u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. While
so, a Provisional Assessment Order had been passed by the second Respondent, on 15.9.2006, by valuing the property in question at Rs.
1,02,15,500/-. The Petitioner had been asked to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 6,00,740/-. Thereafter, the second Respondent had conducted
a spot inspection. He had found that the lands in question were situated at the river bank and there was no proper approach road and that the land
is situated 10 feet below the road surface. However, by an order, dated 9.10.2006, he had confirmed the Provisional Assessment stating that the
adjacent lands, wherein, residential plots had been constructed, are valuable lands and therefore, the Petitioner is to pay the deficit stamp duty of
Rs. 6,00,740/-.
It has been further stated that the order of the second Respondent, dated 9.10.2006, had been challenged by the Petitioner, by way of an
appeal filed before the first Respondent, on 18.10.2006. Since, the first Respondent had not disposed of the appeal, the Petitioner was
constrained to file a writ petition before this Court, in W.P. No. 2427of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated, 9.3.2010, had directed the first
Respondent to dispose of the appeal, within a period of eight weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the first Respondent had disposed of the appeal
by his order, dated 18.5.2010, confirming the order of the second Respondent, fixing a sum of Rs. 355 per sq.ft. as the value for the property in
question. The Petitioner had been directed to pay the deficit stamp duty with interest at 2%per month.
Aggrieved by the said order, the first Respondent had filed an appeal, in C.M.A. No. 1553 of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated 6.7.2010,
had allowed the appeal, holding that the Respondents had not proved that the sale deed in question had been undervalued. Thereafter, the
Petitioner had made representations to the first and the second Respondents, on 21.9.2010, enclosing a copy of the order, dated 6.7.2010, made
in C.M.A. No. 1553 of 2010,requesting him to release the sale deed bearing documentNO.1999 of 2005. Even though no appeal had been filed
challenging the order of this Court, made in C.M.A. No. 1553of 2010, the Respondents had not released the document in question, till date. In
such circumstances, the Petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents had
submitted, on instructions, that the Respondents would be filing an appeal against the order, dated 6.7.2010, made in C.M.A. No. 1553 of 2010.
Therefore, the third Respondent had not released the sale deed, bearing document No. 1999 of 2005.
He had further submitted that even if this Court displeased to direct the Respondents to release the documenting question, it may be observed
that the Respondents would-be entitled to proceed against the property of the Petitioner, for collection of the deficit stamp duty, after the issue is
finally decided.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court finds it appropriate to direct
the third Respondent to release the sale deed, bearing document No. 1999 of 2005, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the Respondents to proceed against the property in question after the issue relating to the
payment of deficit stamp duty by the Petitioner is finally decided by the appropriate court of law, as per the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899, including Section 48 of the said Act. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.