Madras High Court
Koushi Mohan L. Mahtani vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2014
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K.Sasidharan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated:29.10.2014
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN
Writ Appeal No.888 of 2014
1. Koushi Mohan L. Mahtani
2. Indira Jaiprakash Mirpuri
3. Ramesh Mohan Mahtani
4. Nina Chandiramani
5. Mona Hathiramani
6. Michelle Suresh Vasandani
7. Divya Hari Harjani
Appellants 2 to 7 rep. by Power of
Attorney Holder Koushi Mohan L. Mahtani ..Appellants
-Vs.-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome
Chennai-600 028.
3. Joint Sub Registrar
District Registrar Office
Central Chennai. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13 June 2014 in W.P.No.2134 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.Madhan Babu
For Respondent : Mr.P.H. Aravindh Pandian
Addl. Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.P.S. Sivashanmughasundaram
Spl. G.P.
----------
JUDGMENT
The appellants registered a document before the Sub Registrar, Chennai. The Sub Registrar thereafter passed an order with notice to the appellants to the effect that the partition executed between the brothers and legal heirs of another brother should be treated as partition among non family members and as such stamp duty should be collected under Section 45(b) of the Indian Stamp Act. The said order was challenged before the writ court in W.P.No.2134 of 2012. The learned Single Judge having found that a statutory remedy is available to the appellants dismissed the writ petition. The said order is under challenge in this intra-court appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appelllants at length. We have also heard the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents.
3. The issue raised by the appellant is covered by the judgment of this Court in Joint Sub Registrar-I v. Prasanth Chandran (2005) 4 CTC 417.
4. The Joint Sub Registrar, who passed the impugned order was designated as Collector by virtue of Section 2(9)(a) and (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Government as per the order in G.O.Ms.No.736, Revenue dated 15 March 1971 notified all Registrars and Sub Registrars as Collectors in respect of powers to be exercised under certain provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. It was only on the basis of the said authorisation, the third respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition.
5. The appellants are having a clear remedy of revision before the appropriate authority. The learned Single Judge therefore rightly dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter.
6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. The appellants are given two weeks' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file a revision petition before the appropriate authority. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.
[S.K.A.,J] [K.K.S., J.]
29.10.2014
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Tr/
To
1. The Secretary to Governmen
State of Tamil Nadu
Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration
Santhome
Chennai-600 028.
3. Joint Sub Registrar
District Registrar Office
Central Chennai.
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J
Tr
W.A.No.888/2014
29.10.2014