Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Jha vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2021
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2322 of 2020
-----
Sarita Jha .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
3. District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, A.C. to G.P.III
-----
Order No.06 Date: 07.12.2021 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter no.475 dated 20th June, 2020 issued under the signature of the District Sub Registrar, Hazaribagh- respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been informed to get the document registered after paying registration fee and stamp duty as per current applicable rate. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of notifications dated 19th June, 2017, providing exemption of stamp duty and registration fee for women and to register the document presented by the petitioner accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a flat vide sale deed dated 17th March, 2020. The said sale deed/document was presented for registration before the respondent no.3 on 17th March, 2020 and to that effect appointment slip was generated on 18th March, 2020, granting her appointment for registration of the said document on 19th March, 2020 at 12:10 p.m. Pursuant to the said appointment, she visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 19th March, 2020 with all requisites, however, the document could not be registered due to certain technical problems in the office of the respondent no.3. Due to the said reason, the petitioner was again called upon to visit the office of the respondent no.3 on 20th March, 2020 to complete the registration process. She again visited the office of the respondent no.3 and her Aadhar verification was done on 20th March, 2020, but registration process could not be completed due to technical issues with the system and server. Thereafter, she was informed that she would be communicated -2- about the next date to come and complete registration process. In the meantime, the respondent-State of Jharkhand came up with the notification as contained in memo no.220 dated 15th May, 2020, whereby the Notification no.499 dated 19th June, 2017 granting exemption from stamp duty to women was withdrawn. The State Government also rolled back the scheme of waiver from registration charge of property offered to women. The petitioner made representation before the respondent no.3 on 10th June, 2020 requesting inter alia to complete the registration process of the said document after granting her exemption from stamp duty and registration fee. However, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, she was informed vide letter no.475 dated 20th June, 2020 that the document so presented by her was already returned for taking new appointment for registration.
On the contrary, learned A.C. to G.P.III appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, submits that the petitioner had purchased a flat in "Forest Residency Building" in Hazaribagh for which a sale deed was drafted and data entry was done on 18th March, 2020 as well as online appointment was taken by the petitioner on 19th March, 2020. The petitioner visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 19th March, 2020 and step-1 process was completed, however, step-2 process (verification of stamp duty & registration fee) could not be completed due to server error. The petitioner again visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 20th March, 2020 and stamp duty verification, registration fee verification and EKYC i.e. online verification of Aadhar and PAN were completed, but due to technical error in the server, the step of capturing online photograph and biometric record i.e. thumb impression could not be completed, hence the document was not registered and the unregistered document was returned to the executant/presenter/representative of the petitioner for taking fresh appointment. In the meantime, lockdown was implemented on account of Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner was intimated to come on next working day for completion of registration of the document, but she and her vendor did not turn up for the said purpose. Thus the petitioner herself is responsible for non-completion -3- of registration of the document. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for exemption of stamp duty of Rs.1,78,679/- and registration fee Rs.1,34,010/- after coming into force notification dated 15th May, 2020, whereby Notification no.499 dated 19th June, 2017 has been withdrawn.
Be that as it may. On perusal of respective stands taken by the parties in this case, it appears that the document so presented by the petitioner before the respondent no.3 on 17th March, 2020 was subsequently returned to her when the document could not be registered taking last attempt on 20th March, 2020. The petitioner has not made any averment in the writ petition to the effect that the return of the said document to her was ever protested. According to the petitioner, she had represented the respondent no.3 on 10th June, 2020, raising her grievance against non-registration of presented document due to non-payment of stamp duty and registration fee as required in terms with the notification dated 15th May, 2020, however, she did not raise any specific grievance with regard to return of the document by the respondent no.3. Under the said situation, it emerges that the document so presented before the respondent no.3 on 17 th March, 2020 was subsequently returned to the petitioner by the office of the respondent no.3. As such, the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is not worth consideration, particularly keeping in view that no document is presently pending in the office of the respondent no.3. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the action of the respondent no.3 with regard to demand of stamp duty and registration fee in terms with the notification dated 15th May, 2020, she should have raised grievance before appropriate forum/court of law without accepting the return of the said document. Since the said document returned by the respondent no.3 is presently in possession of the petitioner, if the petitioner intends to get the same registered, it is to be presented before the said respondent afresh and undoubtedly she has to pay the stamp duty and registration fee in terms with notification dated 15th May, 2020, which is presently in vogue.
Hence, in the given circumstances of the case particularly the fact that no such sale deed (document in question) is pending before -4- the respondent no.3 for registration, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/