Thomson Plantations (Indian) Private Limited, Koinadu, Sampaje Post, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu - Petitioner @HASH The Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner for Stamps Government of Karnataka, Bangalore and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 22-9-2006 and the order dated 15-9-2009 which are impugned at Annexures-C and F respectively.

The petitioner had participated in the auction process which had been conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Kerala and Lakshadweep) on 18-5-2004 and the petitioner being the successful bidder was declared as the purchaser of the property situate at Urubail Chembu and Sampaje Villages to the extent of 625 acres. The sale accordingly was confirmed on 15-7-2004. The Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as required under the provisions contained in Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 has dispatched the sale certificate issued in favour of the petitioner to be entered in Book-I maintained in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the jurisdiction where the property is situate.

At the first instance, when the entry to be made in Book-I had not been complied by the respondents and in that light, when the respondents were demanding the petitioner to pay the stamp duty as provided under Article 15 of the Schedule lo Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 17482 of 2005 (Thomson Plantations (India) Private Limited, Kodagu v. The Senior Sub-Registrar, Madikeri and Another 2006 (1) Kar. LJ 403 : ILR 2006 Kar. 164 : 2006 (1) AIR Kar. R.239). This Court while disposing of the same by the order dated 10-11-2005 was of the opinion that consideration of the question with regard to the payment of the stamp duty has not arisen at that stage and in that view had directed that the same be entered in Book-I and the consideration with regard to the payment of the stamp duty would arise only in a circumstance when the petitioner relies upon the said document before an authority or Court or if the said document is presented for the purpose of registration by the petitioners themselves.

Though that was the position, the respondents have thereafter initiated proceedings suo motu to recover the stamp duly as a consequence of which the order impugned in the instant petition has been passed. Insofar as the fact situation relating to the manner in which the petitioner has participated in the auction proceedings conducted by the DRT (Kerala and Lakshadweep) and in that light, the Recovery Officer of the DRT having sent the sale certificate under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, there is no serious dispute. The question however is as to whether in such circumstance when the entry is to be made in Book-I and no other event has taken place, whether the respondents at this stage are entitled to seek for payment of stamp duty as demanded by them to be paid under Article 15 to the Schedule of the Karnataka Stamp Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order passed by the learned judge of this Court in W.P. No. 47317 of 2011, dated 21-1-2015 wherein the petitioner in the said petition was seeking a direction from this Court to the Registering Authorities to register the sale certificate dispatched by the Recovery Officer in Book-I as provided under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. This Court while ultimately issuing such direction had also taken into consideration a similar contention urged on behalf of the respondents herein contending that the stamp duty under Article 15 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act is required to be paid before such registration is effected. This Court however considering the scope of the provision contained in Section 89(4) of the Registration Act was of the opinion that the payment of the stamp duty for registration in Book-I in the circumstance as explained therein would not arise at that stage since the entry in Book-1 is to be made as contemplated under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act and it was further held that the provision contained in Section 33 of the Stamp Act would be available for the purpose of recovery of the stamp duty if the circumstance stated therein arise.

Therefore, if the said conclusion reached in a similar set of circumstance is taken into consideration, in the instant case also the stage to recover the stamp duty from the petitioner has not yet arisen. As already indicated, the sale certificate is only at the stage of being entered in Book I which has been done and the petitioner has not relied on the sale certificate either for the purpose of having it registered nor has it been relied before an authority or the Court as contemplated under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Further when the parties herein were before this Court in W.P. No. 17482 of 2005 disposed of on 10-11-2005, this Court at that stage itself has reserved the right of seeking for the stamp duty at the appropriate stage as indicated therein.

Therefore, if these aspects are kept in view the orders impugned are not justified at this stage. Accordingly, the order dated 22-9-2006 as at Annexure-F which is also a part of the observation in Annexure-C stands quashed. Liberty for recovering the stamp duty at the appropriate stage is however left open.

With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.