Kerala High Court
Meenakumari vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 September, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25866 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
MEENAKUMARI, AGED 68 YEARS
W/O.LATE BRAHMANAYAKAM, REVATHY, TC 29/792- 1 CRA 175,
CHEMBAKASSERI, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695008.
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SMT.K.S.SMITHA
SMT.T.T.SHANIBA
SRI.M.V.VIPINDAS
SHRI.AMAL DEV D
SMT.AKHILA P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK OFFICE, ALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121.
3 THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,
SUB TREASURY, TC 21/308, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, PEROORKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695005.
SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADAHAVAN-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25866 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P1 order issued by the first respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), whereby, her application for refund of stamp duty has been rejected. According to the petitioner, the reasons in Ext.P1 are wholly untenable, since the RDO appears to have been guided by the provisions of Section 47(1)(5) of the Kerala Stamp Act 1959; while the provisions of Section 48 thereof had not been even adverted to. She contends that, therefore, Ext.P1 is without legs to stand on.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, initially sought time to file counter pleadings in this case but, however, then submitted that the computation of limitation has been considered by the RDO under the provisions of Section 47(1)(5) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and argued that the same is irreproachable. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, the fact remains that no provisions have been quoted in Ext.P1 to show what has been relied upon by the RDO and he has only rejected it saying that the stamp WP(C) NO. 25866 OF 2020 3 paper is dated 21.01.2020, while the application has been filed only on 16.07.2020. I am certain, therefore, that the matter will have to be reconsidered by the RDO, taking specific note of Sections 47 and 48 of the Stamp Act and after hearing the petitioner appropriately.
4. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is set aside; with a consequential direction to the first respondent to rehear the petitioner and issue fresh orders on her applciation, adverting specifically to Section 47 read with Section 48 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the first respondent as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 25866 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25866/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE UN EXECUTED AND UN REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 21.01.2020 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF E-STAMP FOR A VALUE OF RS.1,20,000/-
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF REGISTRATION FEES OF RS.30130/- ON 21.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2020 PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.