Madras High Court
S.Rajapadmanaban vs The Deputy Tahsildar on 15 July, 2016
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P(MD)No.12402 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)No.9418 of 2016
S.Rajapadmanaban ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy Tahsildar,
Office of the Registration Department,
Tirumoghoor Salai,
Madurai.
2.The District Registrar(Admn.),
North Agraharam Street,
Periyakulam,
Theni District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Andipatti Sub-Registrar's Office,
Theni District. ..Respondents.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent
to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 10.5.2016 for the notice
given on 5.5.2016 by the third respondent with regard to the registration of
Release Deed, dated 10.3.2016 and to pass orders within the time frame
specified by this Court.
!For Petitioner :M/s.S.Manoharan
^For Respondents :Mr.K.Mahesh Raja
Govt. Advocate
:ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3.No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.
4.According to the Petitioner/husband, he presented a Release Deed with sufficient stamps before the Third Respondent/The Sub-Registrar, Andipatti Sub-Registrar's Office, Theni District on 10.3.2016. As a family arrangement, to avoid future problems among the members, his wife has released her rights in the properties and his ancestral origin and in his hotel business related properties. The Third Respondent has kept the registered Release Deed in his custody by assigning a number as P.No.21 of 2016.
5.The grievance of the Petitioner is that he approached the Third Respondent to hand-over the document to him. But the Third Respondent had informed him to pay more money as regards the stamp duty. Later, the Third Respondent had issued him a notice, dated 5.5.2016 raising certain legal questions and asked him to pay the stamp duty, as if it is a Conveyance Deed under Section 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He also furnished the explanation on 10.05.2016 complying with the defects/doubts raised by the Third Respondent. In this connection, the Petitioner takes a stand that the 'Release' is by the Petitioner's wife and among the family members and he did not pay a higher rate of stamp duty as a conveyance and in fact, the Third Respondent cannot question about the title of the Petitioner in regard to the properties in question. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
6.It comes to be known that initially, the Third Respondent/The Sub- Registrar, Andipatti Sub-Registrar Office, Theni District issued an undated notice to the Petitioner citing two defects. According to the Third Respondent, the document namely, the Release Deed is to be construed as a Conveyance Deed and therefore, the stamp duty under Section 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is to be paid by the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner was directed to submit the documents like patta, Encumbrance Certificate relating to the survey numbers inasmuch as the properties are under the jurisdiction of Nanguneri Sub-District and Moolakadaipatti Sub-District of Tirunelveli District. Once again, the Third Respondent by mentioning the date 5.5.2016 had issued a notice to the Petitioner and marking a copy to the Document Writer Mr.R.Santhana Krishnakumar of Theni Town mentioning the same reasons/defects as stated in the un-dated first notice. In fact, the Petitioner had addressed a detailed representation to the Third Respondent's Notice, dated 5.5.2016, explaining his position about the status of the document in question. Till date, his explanation, dated 10.05.2016 has not met with any positive response in the hands of the Third Respondent/The Sub- Registrar, Andipatti Sub-Registrar Office, Theni District.
7.Considering the fact that the Petitioner's reply/explanation, dated 10.5.2016(for the notice, dated 5.5.2016 issued by the Third Respondent) is pending before the Third Respondent and till date, the matter is pending without any disposal or progress in the subject-matter in issue, at this stage, this Court, simpliciter, directs the Third Respondent/The Sub- Registrar, Andipatti Sub-Registrar Office, Theni District to look into the representation/Explanation of the Petitioner, dated 10.5.2016 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the Third Respondent is directed to consider the representation/explanation of the Petitioner, dated 10.5.2016 in all seriousness and earnestness and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits((of course after providing necessary opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, if any, by adhering to the principles of natural justice in true letter and spirit) within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is open to the Petitioner to raise all factual and legal pleas before the Third Respondent in regard to the status of the document and to seek redressal of his grievance in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law. The Petitioner is directed to lend his assistance and co-operation to the Third Respondent, so as to enable him to dispose of his explanation, dated 10.5.2016, within the time determined by this Court, as stated supra.
8.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
To
1.The Deputy Tahsildar, Office of the Registration Department, Tirumoghoor Salai, Madurai.
2.The District Registrar(Admn.), North Agraharam Street, Periyakulam, Theni District.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Andipatti Sub-Registrar's Office,
Theni District. .