Madras High Court
The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) vs M.Alfred on 9 October, 2017
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 09.10.2017
Reserved on: 21.09.2017
Delivered on : 09.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.1176 of 2017,
1177 to 1179 of 2017,
1056 of 2015,
888 & 907 of 2017, 719 of 2014,
237 of 2015 and
W.P.(MD) Nos.20099 of 2013,
13413 of 2016, 14264 of 2016,
23614 of 2015, 2931,
15757 of 2016 and 11908 of 2012 and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.8182 to 8185 of 2017
in W.A.(MD)Nos.1176 to 1179 of 2017,
M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2015 in
W.A.(MD) No.1056 of 2015,
C.M.P.(MD) No.5899 of 2017
in W.A.(MD) No.888 of 2017,
C.M.P.(MD) No.6090 and 6091 of 2017
in W.A.(MD) No.907 of 2017,
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 in
W.A.(MD) No.719 of 2014 and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 in
W.A.(MD) No.237 of 2015
W.A.(MD)Nos.1176 to 1179 of 2017
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Burkitmangaram, Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
M.Alfred ... Respondent/Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.1176 of 2017
L.C.Pauldurai ... Respondent/Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.1177 of 2017
S.Selvakumar ... Respondent/Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.1178 of 2017
T.Kumar ... Respondent/Petitioner in
W.A.(MD) No.1179 of 2017
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.11978 to 11981 of 2017 dated 12.07.2017.
!For Appellants in all the : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
four appeals Special Government Pleader
^For Respondent in all the : Mr.S.Hajamohideen Gisthi
four appeals
W.A.(MD)Nos.1056 of 2015, 888 and 907 of 2017
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Kokkirakulam,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Joint Sub Registrar No.1,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
P.Mani ... Respondent/Petitioner in W.A.
(MD) No.1056 of 2015
M.Lakshmi ... Respondent/Petitioner in W.A.
(MD) Nos.888 and 907 of 2017
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17911 of 2014 dated 07.11.2014 and
W.P.(MD) Nos.34 and 35 of 2015 dated 09.12.2016
For Appellants in all these : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
appeals Special Government Pleader
For Respondent in all these : Mr.M.Vallinayagam
appeals Senior Counsel for
Mr.H.Arumugam
W.A.(MD)No.719 of 2014
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Madurai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Registration Department,
Melur, Madurai District. ...
Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
P.Lakshmanan (Died)
L.Savithiri ... Respondent/Petitioner
(Second Respondent is substituted
as legal representative of the
deceased first Respondent as per
order dated 17.02.2014 made in
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7869 of 2009 dated 18.02.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Anwarsameem
W.A.(MD)No.237 of 2015
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Office of the Sub Registrar,
Aruppukkottai Town. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
A.Jayakumar ... Respondent/Petitioner
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17239 of 2014 dated 27.10.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
W.P.(MD) No.20099 of 2013:
M.Sundar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the
sale deed registered before the 2nd respondent in document No.4684/12 dated
30.11.2012 to the petitioner within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.13413 of 2016:
R.Ravi Barathi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Old Ramnad Collector Office Campus,
Opp. to Anna Bus Stand,
Madurai ? 625 020.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Registrar Office, Oddanchatram,
Oddanchatram Taluk,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to
release the petitioner's Rectification deed registered vide Document
Nos.196/2011 & 197/2011 dated 30.04.2010 within a stipulated period as fixed
by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu
For Respondents 1 & 2 :Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.14264 of 2016:
K.A.Kamaldeen ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) Office,
Collectorate Office, Madurai District.
2.Sub-Registrar Office,
Kallimandayam,
Palani, Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the
sale deed in survey No.106 and document No.388/2016 dated on 06.04.2016 in
the extent of 9 acre and 24 cent. Situate at Chinnakampatti Village and
direct the respondents to consider the petitioner sale deed receipt
No.2016377 and document No.P201600023/388/2016 dated 06.04.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Syedali
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.23614 of 2015:
A.Dhandapani ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Madurai Collectorate,
Madurai.
2.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar's Office,
Chinnalapatti,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to release the
Registered Sale Deed Document No.2173/2015 dated 21.09.2015 on the file of
the 2nd Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manikandan
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.2931 of 2016:
A.L.Ramu ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai.
2.The District Registrar,
Registration Department,
Pudukkottai.
3.The Special Deputy Collector (For Stamps),
Collectorate Office, (Old Building),
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Sub-Registrar,
Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3 and 4 to
return the petitioner's registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.2015 in Document
No.2015/2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.15757 of 2016:
N.Neelakandan ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Collectorate,
Tiruchirappalli ? 620 001.
2.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1,
Registration Department,
District Registrar's Office,
Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli ? 620 001. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the
original sale deed No.6906/2014 dated 14.11.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Shangar Murali
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD) No.11908 of 2012:
Vijayakumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Special Deputy Collector for Stamps,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the proceedings in S.R.No.2204/2007 dated 05.07.2012 of the
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to
return the petitioner's sale deed dated 05.10.2007.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.VR.Shamuganathan
Special Government Pleader
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J) Since the issue arose for consideration in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal.
2.An issue of importance on the role of a registering authority after registration and the exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Collector during and after adjudication qua release of an instrument is being discussed before us in this proceedings.
3.Before proceeding with the issue involved, let us consider the prayer sought for in the writ petitions and the Writ Appeals.
4.Writ Petitions filed in W.P.(MD) No.20099 of 2013, 14264 of 2016, 23614 of 2015, 2931 of 2016 and 15757 of 2016 and Writ Appeals (MD) Nos.1176 to 1179 of 2017, 1056 of 2015 and 237 of 2015 are with respect to release of instruments after registration. Writ Petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to release the instruments during the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
5.Writ Petition (MD) No.11908 of 2012 has been filed challenging the demand notice with a consequential prayer for the return of instrument. Though the proceedings have become conclusive, they have not been put to challenge, but only a consequential demand notice.
6.Writ Petition(MD) No.13413 of 2016 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the authority concerned to release the instruments concerned. In this case, 47-A proceedings are concluded and the petitioner was asked to pay the amount fixed.
7.W.A.(MD) No.719 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order, directing the authority concerned to return the document. Though the prayer is only for the return of the instrument, the learned Single Judge went into other issues and declared that the proceedings were deemed to have been lapsed. However, the facts would reveal that the proceedings were in fact concluded a decade ago and recovery proceedings have been initiated. Incidentally, the learned Single Judge directed the instrument to be released.
8.W.A.(MD) Nos.888 and 907 of 2017 have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the order passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Consequential direction was issued to release the documents.
9.For answering the issue, we need to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, along with Rules, namely, Tamil Nadu State (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and the Registration Act, 1908 along with its Rules. Let us now take the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Object:
10.The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is purely a fiscal enactment made for fixing and collecting the Government revenue. Thus, the intention is to augment revenue and therefore, the provisions are to be treated accordingly. Hence, a literal interpretation is to be adopted. A stamp duty is levied with reference to an instrument. Being a fiscal statute, it is not depending upon any contingency and thus it is to be interpreted strictly ignoring the relative hardship of a party, who is otherwise liable to pay the amount levied. The stamp duty payable is related to the actual market value of the property and not the one described in the instrument. Hence, the enactment casts an obligation on the statutory authority to properly ascertain the true value for securing revenue for the State.
11.This settled position of law has been taken note of by various High Courts. It would be appropriate to quote the following paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers (SC) [2008 (1) CTC 60]:
?10. ... A taxing statute is not contingent on the inconvenience of the parties. It is needless to emphasize that a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and considerations of hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction. VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT, J. expressing the principle in the following words:
'In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.'
11. The same was expressed by Hon'ble Bhagwati, J. in the case of A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR 1957 SC 657. The principle is as follows:
'In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law. If the revenue satisfies the Court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intention of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.' Hon'ble Shah, J. has formulated the principle thus:
'In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency.' Therefore, a taxing statue has to be read as it is. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation applies to it.?
Provisions:-
12. Now, let us go into the provisions of the enactment. Chapter III of the Indian Stamp Act deals with adjudication as to Stamps. This is a role to be played by the Collector under Section 31 of the said Act. Chapter IV deals with an instrument not duly stamped. As per Section 33 of the Act, a person after impounding the same, shall refer it to the Collector. He shall thereafter proceed to recover the deficit stamp duty under Section 33-A of the Act after following the procedure contemplated. As per Section 38 of the Act, the person impounding the instrument shall send the same in original to the Collector.
Role of the Registering Authority:
13.A Registering Authority, after receiving an instrument of conveyance, while registering the same, if he has a reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, may, after registering such instrument, refer it to the Collector for fixing the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. Therefore, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registering authority is duty bound to register the document. If there is no reason to believe that there is undervaluation, then the instrument will have to be released. On the contrary, if there is a reason to believe that there is undervaluation, he has to refer it to the Collector after duly recording the reasons.
14.The important issue in this case is the reference with respect to the instrument. In other words, it is the instrument, which is liable to be referred. After all, the value is set forth only in the instrument. While undertaking the exercise of reference, the registering authority is expected to act within a reasonable time, though no time limit is prescribed, as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in Karmegam, G. v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai (FB) [2007 (5) CTC 737], if no reference is made within a reasonable period and the document is not released, it is for the Court to consider the same on the facts of the case and pass appropriate orders, including the question of handing over the instrument. Suffice it is to state, once a reference is made by a registering authority, then he becomes a functus officio. His role gets terminated. To put it differently, there is no mandate on the registering authority to give a registered document to the party while referring to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. This interpretation of Section 47-A has not been dealt with by the Court except a casual observation in Krishnan, M. v. The District Collector, Erode District [1998 (III) CTC 366].
15.The Collector has to act under Section 47-A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1). Under sub-section (3), he can also take suo motu action. If one sees the language of sub-section (3), the Collector can call for and examine the instrument. There is no provision, which enables or mandates the Collector to release an instrument pending adjudication and thereafter.
16.Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act speaks about the charge. Such a charge is on the property mentioned in the instrument. The charge is not on the instrument, but on the property. Creating charge is one thing and release of document is another thing. However, the question for consideration is as to whether such a charge by itself give a right to get the document released, not-withstanding payment of duty determined. Keeping in mind the object of the enactment, necessarily we have to hold that no such right is available.
Rules:
17.The Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has been made in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 47-A and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Rule 4 provides for the procedure for reference, to be followed by the Collector. Rule 7 speaks about the final order determining the market value. We are concerned with the procedure to be adopted. What is relevant for the purpose for deciding the issue is Rule 7 (3) and (4). As per Rule 7(3), after the adjudication is over, the difference in the amount of duty determined by the Collector shall be paid within two months from the date of final order passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, once the adjudication is made, then the duty determined is mandatory to be paid. Under sub-clause (4) of Rule 7, the Collector shall, after collecting the difference in amount of stamp duty and interest, if any, under Section 47-A of the Act, give a certificate in Form III on the instrument. If we read sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Rule 47(7), the registering authority and the Collector are mandated to perform their respective roles. Payment of the duty determined is mandatory, followed by the certification of the Collector by way of an endorsement on the instrument.
18.Hence, unless these two requirements are satisfied, there is absolutely no question of releasing the instrument in the absence of any right accrued through the provisions. However, the outer limit given under adjudication under Rule 7 being procedural cannot be construed to mean that the proceedings are not liable to be conducted thereafter. Being procedural, it is only directory and not mandatory. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 7 being a mandatory provision, and on such compliance, a Collector is duty bound to comply with sub-clause (4).
19.Rule 9 speaks of appeals. Appeal can be filed against the orders of the Collector. Every Appeal has to be accompanied by a certified copy or the original of the instrument. This provision is also procedural in nature. The requirement of filing the original or certified copy would arise only when the Collector was not in possession of an instrument. Therefore, in such a situation, there is no question of an appeal being accompanied by the original or certified copy of the instrument. To put it differently, one cannot say that Rule 7(3) and (4) need not be complied with being substantive provisions. Rule 9 being procedural cannot indirectly overrule Rule 7(3) and (4).
20. Rule 16 deals with refund of excess stamp duty. From the illustration, it is clear, what is referred is the instrument alone, which is referred to the Collector under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Though Rule 16 is only a Rule, it would clearly indicate the object enshrined under Section 47-A of the Act.
21.The object of the Registration Act is to give certainty to the title, preventing fraud, give evidentiary value to the documents and make them public (See In Re, Official Liquidator, High Court [2010 (2) CTC 113]). Therefore, the provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act are acting on their respective fields to achieve their distinct objects. They are not in pari materia. While Indian Stamp Act is actually a fiscal enactment, the Registration Act gives sanctity to the transactions. Section 61 of the Registration Act deals with endorsement and certificates to be copied and documents returned. This provision speaks about the return of documents. This has got nothing to do with the provisions of the Stamp Act, especially cases dealing with undervaluation and reference made under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the so called return can only be with respect to the document, over which no determination was made with respect to the market value of the property mentioned therein.
22.Registration Rules have been framed in exercise of power granted under the enactment. Rule 27(2) deals with a document deficiently stamped. The registering authority shall inform the party about deficiency and if agreeable, the same can be collected and certified by him under Section 41 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In other cases, the documents shall be impounded and action has to be taken under the Act. Therefore, this provision speaks about the mandatory impounding followed by action. Explanation to Rule 27 wants to make the position clear regarding the registration qua undervaluation of an instrument. It thus explains that an issue pursuant to undervaluation cannot be a ground for return of a document. Therefore, it would mean a document has to be registered by the registering authority.
23.The Tamil Nadu Registration Manual- Part-II- Departmental Orders - 726 states as follows:
?726. (I) A reference by the registering officer to the Collector shall contain all details regarding the instrument including those specified in clause (b) to (f) and (h) of rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules, 1968 and shall be accompanied by the original instrument.?
Thus, the above said provision in clear terms requires production of the original instrument.
24.Whether it is a question of impounding, deficit stamp duty or undervaluation, the result appears to be the same. What is determined by the Collector has to be paid. This determination is the duty payable on the instrument. These three are to be considered from the perspective of the revenue. Therefore, one has to come to an irresistible conclusion that in the absence of any provision relating to release of document during the pendency and after adjudication, a Collector is not bound to do so.
25.Though, payment of duty is one thing and release of the document is the other thing, both are intertwined with each other. The enactment merely provides for registration, notwithstanding the issue pertaining to undervaluation. The said factor cannot be extended for the release of the document in the absence of any provision. To that extent, there is no conflict between the two enactments. With the above said understanding of the provisions of the two enactments, let us go into the contentions raised.
26.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in the Writ Appeals and the respondents in the Writ Petitions would submit that neither the registering authority nor the Collector is duty bound to return the instrument. As on today, about Rs.12,000 Crores are to be collected by way of duty. The provisions of the Indian Stamp Act will have to be interpreted strictly. Even on a combined reading of the provisions under the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, the documents both during and after adjudication are not liable to be given back. The learned Special Government Pleader had fairly produced number of judgments both in his favour and against him.
27.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Writ Appeals and the petitioners in the Writ Petitions would submit that in the absence of provision to withhold the documents they are to be returned. The registering authority cannot withhold the document. The same applies to the Collector as well. Section 47-A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act provides for a charge.
Therefore, there is no need for withholding the document. Reference is with respect to the dispute and not the instrument. Thus, the writ petitions will have to be allowed and the writ appeals will have to be dismissed.
28.As discussed above, there is no question of return of the instrument by the registering authority, if a reference is made along with the instrument. In the absence of any provisions enabling the return of the instruments, the same cannot be given back. The provision for creating charge cannot be construed for an automatic release of the document. Even if we apply the principle of purposive and reasonable interpretation, the instrument cannot be released until and unless the duty determined is set aside or found to be wrong. In the light of discussions made above, we are of the view that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners cannot be accepted.
29.Number of judgments have been relied on at the bar. We have also discussed the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, as he then was, in Krishnan, M. v. The District Collector, Erode District [1998 (III) CTC 366]. The fact involved therein is different. However, we find the discussions made in paragraph 71 with respect to retention of document after completing registration of the document, cannot be accepted as a correct position of law. There is no question of retention by the registering authority. He merely has to send it along with other records to the Collector for adjudication.
30.An appeal was filed against the judgment before the Division Bench. In District Collector, Erode Dist. Erode v. M. Ponnusamy (DB) [2001 (2) CTC 449], the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:
?31. ... The action of the Registering Authority in keeping the document without returning it or referring it has indirectly invalidated its operation or its benefit to the vendees on the erroneous invocation of power under Section 47-A(1) of the Act.
32. ... For all the above reasons, we have no hesitation whatsoever in approving the view of the learned Judge that the document should be returned sooner its registration is complete, at any rate within three weeks from the date of completion of registration of the document or it must be referred within a period of three weeks to the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act.?
Thus, the Division Bench itself has stated that the document should be returned or it must be referred within 3 weeks by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. It is to be observed that the order passed by the Division Bench with respect to the three weeks time limit is found to be incorrect law by the Larger Bench referred to supra.
31.Reliance has been made on the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal (MD) No.1346 of 2016 dated 17.10.2016. However, the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers (SC) [2008 (1) CTC 60] and the relevant provisions were not brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench. The Division Bench also did not take notice of the Scope of Section 47-A (1) of Indian Stamp Act with specific reference to the issue as to whether a reference also includes the instrument or not. Though Rules 4 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu State (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 were taken note of, there was no consideration thereto. After all, a decision can be binding precedent, only if an issue comes up for conscious consideration. Thus, we are of the considered view that the said decision is not a binding precedent.
32.We have already discussed that the time limit mentioned in Rule 7 sub-clause (1) is not mandatory being procedural. Hence, the same cannot give any right to claim a document nor to contend that the proceedings would lapse. However, the Collector cannot take his own sweet time. Thus, seeking to expedite the proceedings is one thing and asking for a release of document is another. Inasmuch as directions have been sought for as a matter of right in releasing the instrument, we are of the view that the writ petitions filed for the aforesaid prayer notwithstanding the pending proceedings under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act are liable to be rejected.
33.Accordingly, W.P.(MD) Nos.20099 of 2013, 23614 of 2015, 2931 of 2016, 15757 of 2016 and 14264 of 2016 are dismissed. However, we direct the Collector concerned to positively conclude the proceedings and determine the duty within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Resultantly, the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.A.(MD) Nos.237 of are hereby set aside with the same directions to the Collector concerned to conclude the proceedings within time limit aforesaid. W.P.(MD) No.11908 of 2012, challenging only the demand notice, stands dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to serve copy of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioner. On receipt of the same, liberty is given to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. W.P.(MD) No.13413 of 2016 stands dismissed, as there is no question of releasing the document after determination under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. However, liberty is given to challenge it by way of appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which case, the question of limitation will not arise. Writ Appeal (MD) No.719 of 2014 stands allowed, as the learned Single Judge gave a wrong finding that the proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed without even a challenge to it and in the absence of any prayer. The records would also indicate that the proceedings concluded way back and notice has been sent to the petitioner, which factum has not been disputed before us. Final orders have been passed as early as on 25.11.2017. However, liberty is given to the writ petitioner to challenge the order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As in the earlier case, the question of limitation will not apply in this case also. Writ Appeal (MD) Nos.888 and 907 of 2017 stands allowed, insofar as release of document alone is concerned. The appellants are directed to conclude the proceedings within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
34.Before we part with the case, we like to issue certain directions. Crores of public revenue could not be collected in view of the release of the documents. The situation has been brought forth not only by the private parties but also by the registering authority and the Collector. We find that despite the observations made by the Full Bench in Karmegam, G. v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai (FB) [2007 (5) CTC 737], and the order passed in Writ Appeal (MD) No.101 of 2015 dated 02.12.2016, no effort has been made to remedy the situation. In a way, the official respondents are responsible for the delay, which leads to passing of the orders by this Court as litigants cannot be asked to wait in eternity. It is suffice to extract the following order passed in W.A.(MD) No.101 of 2015 dated 02.12.2016:
?3.The appeal, thus, dismissed. But the appellants are directed to file a status report as to what steps were taken by the Collector of Stamps, after the reference was made to him in the present case, how many such matters are pending before the Collector of Stamps and since when and as to the number of post of officers to deal with the matter in issue and whether any vacancies existing or not.
4. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
5.List for compliance on 04.01.2017.?
There is no compliance reported till now. We have been informed at the bar that the same situation continues.
35.Under those circumstances, we are constrained to issue the following directions:
(i) The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, is directed to consider appropriate amendment fixing a time limit for the registering authority to refer the instrument under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
(ii) The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, or the Inspector General of Registration and Controlling Revenue Authority shall issue appropriate circulars or directions to the Collector, to comply with rule 7(1) of Tamil Nadu State (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
36.Considering the importance of the issue, we direct the learned Advocate General/Additional Advocate General to inform the progress made, in the next hearing.
To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai,
2.Tamil Nadu Registrar General - cum -
Chief Revenue Controlling Officer, Chennai.
3.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai.
4.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli.
6.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Madurai.
7.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
8.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Old Ramnad Collector Office Campus, Opp. to Anna Bus Stand, Madurai ? 625 020.
9.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamp) Office, Collectorate Office, Madurai District.
10.The Special Deputy Collector (For Stamps), Collectorate Office, (Old Building), Tiruchirappalli ? 620 001.
11.The District Registrar, Registration Department, Pudukkottai.
12.The Sub Registrar, Burkitmangaram, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
13.The Joint Sub Registrar No.1, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
14.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Melur, Madurai District.
15.The Sub Registrar, Office of the Sub Registrar, Aruppukkottai Town.
16.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli.
17.The Sub-Registrar, Registrar Office, Oddanchatram, Oddanchatram Taluk, Dindigul District.
18.Sub-Registrar Office, Kallimandayam, Palani, Dindigul District.
19.The Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar's Office, Chinnalapatti, Dindigul District.
20.The Sub-Registrar, Thirumayam, Pudukkottai District.
21.The Joint Sub-Registrar No.1, Registration Department, District Registrar's Office, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli ? 620 001.
22.The Advocate General, Madras High Court, Chennai.
23.The Additional Advocate General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.