Subject matter of the writ petition is Punjai Manavari land admeasuring an extent of 1.11 acres and comprised in S.No.740/5, Block No.12, TS Ward No.2 in Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District (hereinafter referred to as 'said land', for the sake of brevity).
2.The document that is the subject matter of the writ petition is a sale deed dated 30.03.1999 registered as Document No.2075/99 on the file of Sub Registrar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District, who is respondent no.3 before me. This sale deed is hereinafter referred to as 'said sale deed', for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3.It is the case of the writ petitioner that she purchased the said land under the said sale deed for valuable consideration from a third party. However, post registration, respondent no.3 did not return the said sale deed to her, is her say. The ground for not so returning (as she was given to understand) is that respondent no.3 was of the view that the said land has been under-valued in the said sale deed, is her further say.
4.On the above ground, respondent no.3 has sent the sale deed for adjudication under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (Central Act 2 of 1899) (as in force in the State of Tamil Nadu) (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for the sake of brevity). This culminated in an order dated 20.07.2001 bearing Ref.Mu.Pa.No.185/ Po/2000 made by respondent no.2 before me, i.e., Special Collector (Stamps), Coimbatore District, Coimbatore, who held that there is under valuation and also quantified the deficit stamp duty.
5.Aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal dated 09.09.2004 before respondent no.1 before me, who is the Inspector General of Registration, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. This appeal dated 09.09.2004 by the writ petitioner to respondent no.1 is under Section 47-A (10) of the said Act. While the writ petitioner was awaiting a hearing in her appeal, it is the case of the writ petitioner that she was served with an order dated 04.10.2004 bearing Ref.No.47501/N2/2004 by respondent no.1 before me, which hereinafter will be referred to as 'impugned order'.
6.A perusal of the impugned order would show that it is absolutely cryptic. There is no discussion. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that an opportunity of being heard has been given to the writ petitioner.
7.Mr.Palani Selvaraj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, would contend that whenever a statutory appeal under Section 47-A of the said Act is preferred, a procedure for hearing the appeal has been clearly mandated in the Rules framed thereunder and the relevant rule, according to him, is Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Rules'). Rule 10 may be usefully extracted and the same reads as hereunder:
10.Procedure for the disposal of appeals. - (1) If the appellate authority admits the appeal, a date shall be fixed for hearing the appellant. The appellate authority shall issue a notice to the appellant informing him of the date on which and the time and place at which the appeal shall be heard. Such notice shall also state that if the appellant does not appear on the day so fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed for default or disposed of on merits ex parte.
(2)The appellate authority shall send a copy of the notice to the Collector together with a copy of the appeal and call for and obtain the records of the case from the Collector. A perusal of the impugned order shows that Rule 10 has been given a complete go-by.
8.Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader, fairly submits that there is nothing on record to show that the statutory appeal dated 09.09.2004 made by the writ petitioner to respondent no.1 has been heard and disposed of in accordance with Rule 10 of the said Rules.
9.Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, on the short point that no opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner and Rule 10 of the said Rules, which mandates the procedure for disposal of such appeals, has been given a complete go-by, I set aside the impugned order.
10.The following directions are given:
a)Respondent no.1 is directed to take up the statutory appeal of the writ petitioner dated 09.09.2004 and dispose of the same, after putting all concerned on notice and giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner and by strictly following Rule 10 of the said Rules.
b)The above exercise shall be commenced within a fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and completed within three (3) months therefrom.
c)As both the learned counsel are unable to assert the factual position as to whether the said sale deed was returned to the writ petitioner, there shall be a direction to respondent no.3 to return the said sale deed dated 30.03.1999 being Document No.2075/99 to the writ petitioner, if the same has not already been returned to the writ petitioner. This shall be done without waiting for disposal of the appeal.
d)At the inception of the instant writ petition, an interim order of stay, staying the operation of the impugned order was granted by this Court in WP.M.P.No.27430 of 2005 on 04.08.2005. The same is operating until this day. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the writ petitioner had the benefit of interim stay throughout the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order restraining any coercive action qua the said sale deed shall operate till the disposal of the statutory appeal as aforesaid. To be noted, as I have set aside the impugned order, the interim order is rewritten/modified to say that no coercive action pertaining to the said sale deed or recovery of deficit stamp shall be initiated or continued against the writ petitioner till the disposal of the statutory appeal.
e)In the event of orders in the statutory appeal being adverse to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid rewritten/modified interim order will continue to operate for a further period of sixty (60) days from the date of disposal of the appeal, so as to enable the writ petitioner to work out any remedy that may be available to the writ petitioner in law.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WP.M.P.No.27430 of 2005 is closed.
25.07.2017 Index : Yes/No Website : Yes/No sra M.Sundar, J.
(sra) To
1.The Chief Revenue Officer cum The Inspector General of Registration, Mylapore, Chennai-4.
2.The Special Collector (Stamps) Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
W.P.No.25055 of 2005 25.07.2017