In this case, the petitioner has purchased a land in Survey No.5/2 and 5/3 of Sevvampatti Village, Potchampalli Sub Registration District, Krishnagiri Registration District, measuring an extent of 2.35 acres on the execution of two sale deeds by the vendor dated 01.10.2001 and on payment of stamp duty on the market value, they were registered as document Nos.1091/2001 and 1092/2001 in the second respondent's office. Even after registration, the document was not returned and no reference was made under Section 47 A (1) of the Indian Stamps Act. After the petitioner caused legal notice dated 04.05.2007, the communication was made by the second respondent on 22.05.2007 stating that the proceedings under Section 47-A(1) are pending in respect of the documents No.1091/2001 and 1092/2001. In these circumstances, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court, the present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to release the documents.
2. It is not in dispute that the said sale deeds were registered in the office of the second respondent on the date of presentation, namely, on 01.10.2001 and from 01.10.2001 till 22.05.2007 when communication was sent to the petitioner, stating that 47-A (1) proceedings are pending, there is no notice issued in respect of the initiation of 47-A(1) proceedings except the said letter dated 22.05.2007.
3. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in "Tata Coffee Ltd., Bangalore ..vs.. The State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai-9 and others" reported in (2008) 3 CTC 614 wherein in paragraph 23 while disposing a batch of cases, this court has laid down the guidelines in paragraph 23(f) of the said judgment, which is as follows:
It is true that like the referring authority/Registering Authority for whom there is no period of limitation prescribed either in the Act or under the Rules for referring documents to the Collector, there is no period of limitation prescribed for the Appellate Authority for disposing of Appeal, even though a period of limitation, as I have stated earlier, can be inferred for the Collector to complete the enquiry under Rule 7. It is also seen under Section 47-A(3) that the Collector has suo motu power to conduct enquiry regarding valuation of the property which is the subject of the document and such power is restricted for a period of five years from the date of registration of such document. Therefore, the power of the Collector to conduct suo motu enquiry would get lapsed after five years.
4. The power of the Collector to conduct enquiry lapses after five years. In the present case, the suo motu power itself lapses when the registration of the document was on 01.10.2001 and even as on 22.05.2007, when the communication was sent by the second respondent to the petitioner, there was no proceedings initiated under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act, evidencing any notice issued under the said provision and therefore as per the said judgment reported, the proceedings automatically lapsed.
5. In such view of the matter the writ petition stands allowed with direction to the second respondent to release the document Nos.1091/01 and 1092/01 dated 01.10.2001 to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
gv To:
1.The Special Deputy Collector, (Stamps) Salem.
2.The Sub Registrar, Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District