Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs District Registrar (General) on 9 August, 2023
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 22910 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL SALAM
AGED 57 YEARS
AMBADAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM PO, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS.
P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
E.S.FIROS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
PERUMPALLY BUILDING, OPP MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
2 SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, MINI CIVIL
STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. DEEPA V (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 and P7 issued in proceedings alleging undervaluation leading to payment of lower amount stamp duty and registration fees in respect of Ext.P1 document. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer to the provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and Rule 7 of the same Rules to contend that there must be an initial determination that there has been undervaluation before proceeding to the stage of determination of the extent of undervaluation in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules. It is also submitted that, in the facts of the present case, without affording an opportunity at the stage of determining whether there was actually an undervaluation, the authorities had proceeded to the stage of determination of the extent of undervaluation under Rule 7 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not even been considered while issuing Ext.P6 and thereafter, Ext.P7 notice has been issued proceeding to determine the extent of undervaluation under Rule 7 of the Rules. It is also submitted that the provisions of the Rules would require that notice W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 3 be issued to the seller as well as all the purchasers and, in the facts of the present case, the notice has been issued to the petitioner alone, who is one among the purchasers in Ext.P1 document.
2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that a reading of Exts.P6 and P7 will show that there has been no final determination of any undervaluation and it will be open to the petitioner to take up all his objections before the authorities as and when the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 notice are finalised.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there must be an initial determination of the fact that there has been undervaluation before proceeding to determine the extent of undervaluation in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules. That apart, I also see that notices of proceedings in this case have been issued only to the petitioner while no notice has been issued to the seller and to the co- purchasers. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition can be allowed by setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 and directing the 1 st respondent to first determine in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules as to whether there is any undervaluation W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 4 before proceeding to the stage of adjudication under Rule 7 of the Rules where the extent of undervaluation will be determined. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am also inclined to direct that while determining as to whether there was any undervaluation, notices must be issued to the vendor in Ext.P1 as also to the co-purchasers who along with the petitioner are co-owners of the property. The 1 st respondent shall issue fresh notice to all the aforesaid persons and thereafter, proceed in the manner directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22910/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3700/I/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO
DATED.30.8.2022
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR-VALUE
NOTIFICATION PREVALENT DURING THE
REGISTRATION OF EXT. P1 DATED.30.3.2022
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM IA SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED.30.8.2022
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED.12.1.2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED.4.2.2023
Exhibit.P5[a] THE TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE VENGOLA
DATED.8.5.2023
Exhibit.P5[b] TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK EXTRACT ISSUED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,VENGOLA
Exhibit.P5[c] TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY THE
VENDOR DATED.12.7.2022
Exhibit.P5[d] THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.41/2022
OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR DATED.19.9.2022 Exhibit.P5[e] THE TRUE COPY OF CASE STATUS DOWNLOADED FROM WEBSITE IN OS.41/2022 Exhibit.P.5[f] TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED.4.2.2023 Exhibit.P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED AGAINST W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 6 THE PETITIONER DATED.26.5.2023 Exhibit.P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DATED.26.5.2023