The petitioner had purchased a property in S.Nos.187/12 and 187/13, at Kullalakkundu Village, Nilakottai Sub Registration District from one Jayasankar through a sale deed, dated 18.09.2000. The said document was registered as document No.163/2001 on 30.01.2001.
2. According to the petitioner, he had paid the entire stamp duty for the sale deed. By order dated 06.112009, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,208/- as deficit stamp duty. Since no enquiry was conducted under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the petitioner had challenged the said proceedings in W.P.(MD).No.2854 of 2010. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was appraised of the facts by the learned Additional Government Pleader that there was already an order passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, dated 30.09.2004 and based on that order, the order dated 06.11.2009 for the deficit stamp duty was made.
3. In the said writ proceedings, the learned Single Judge of this Court had called for the original records from the second respondent office and on perusal of the same, it was seen that the order was communicated through ordinary post. In this background, the learned Single Judge had rendered a finding stating that the order was not deemed to have been served on the petitioner at all. Nevertheless, a copy of the order dated 30.09.2004 was served on the petitioner's counsel therein, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
4. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that when the impugned order, dated 30.09.2004 was passed, no notice of enquiry was served on him. As evidenced in the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 31.03.2010, the enquiry was not properly conducted as contemplated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. As a matter fact, the order which is impugned in the writ petition was handed over by the learned Additional Government Pleader to the petitioner counsel.
5. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act contemplates that while conducting an enquiry, the registering authority is duty bound to issue prior notice and consider the objections of the parties. In the present case, no proper enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has been kept in dark about the enquiry. Hence, the order passed by the second respondent, dated 30.09.2004 is liable to be quashed. In view of a long period having lapsed between the presentation of the document and till date, it would not be proper to remit the matter back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner has also received the original sale deed from the second respondent.
6. In view of the same, the impugned order, dated 30.09.2004, on the file of the second respondent is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
To
1.The Special Deputy Collector (stamps), Madurai.
2.The Sub Registrar, Nilakottai, Dindigul District..