Karnataka High Court
Thomson Plantations (India) Private ... vs The Senior Sub-Registrar And Anr. on 10 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: ILR2006KAR164, 2006(1)KARLJ403, 2006 (1) AIR KAR R 239
Author: K.L. Manjunath
Bench: K.L. Manjunath
ORDER K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Limited had borrowed loan from Federal Bank Limited, for having not repaid the loan payable to Federal Bank Limited, the property of M/s. Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Limited was brought to public auction. Accordingly, an extent of 625 acres of land situated at Uribail Chembu and Sampaje Village, Madikeri Taluk, were sold in public auction. The petitioner became the successful bidder for Rs. 9,00,10,0007- (Rupees Nine crores ten thousand only). The said sale was conducted on 18-5-2004. The sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 15-7-2004. Thereafter, the Recovery Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Cochin, sent a copy of the sale certificate to the Senior Sub-Registrar, Mercara, directing him to file the copy of the sale certificate in Book I as required under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar, Mercara, after receipt of copy of the sale certificate from the Debts Recovery Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty as required under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and addressed a letter to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to recover the stamp duty from the purchaser and remit the same to him. A copy of the same was sent to the petitioner's Counsel as per Annexure-A, dated 18-6-2005. This order is called in question in this writ petition contending that the petitioner is not liable to pay the stamp duty on the sale certificate since the same has been sent by the Recovery Officer only for the purpose of filing as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act by directing the 1st respondent to file a copy of the sale certificate in Book I under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
2. The respondents have filed counter contending that as per Article 15 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, sale certificates issued by the Recovery Officer attracts the stamp duty as per Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and such document has to be considered as conveyance for the purpose of stamp duty. Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that unless and until the stamp duty is recovered from the purchaser, the request of the Recovery Officer to keep the copy of the sale certificate in Book I cannot be considered.
3. I have heard the Counsels for the parties.
4. According to Mr. Sripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though sale certificate directs stamp duty as per Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, since the said document is not presented by the petitioner for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Mercara, the question of demanding the stamp duty from the petitioner would not arise for consideration. According to him, it is only an intimation sent by the Recovery Officer for the purpose of filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
5. According to the learned Government Pleader, since the sale certificate has to be drawn on the required stamp papers as the same has not been done by the Recovery Officer, the Sub-Registrar has rightly demanded the Recovery Officer to collect the stamp duty from the purchaser and transfer the same to him. According to him, when the instrument is required to be drawn on the required stamp paper and when the same has not been done, it is the duty of the Sub-Registrar to demand the purchaser to pay the stamp duty. Therefore, he requested this Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard the Counsels for the parties what is required to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is whether the Sub-Registrar can demand the petitioner/purchaser to pay the stamp duty when a copy of the sale certificate has been sent by the Recovery Officer only for the purpose of filing in Book I as required under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act? It is a well-settled law that whenever a property is sold in public auction for recovery of arrears, such document need not be registered as per Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. But, it is not in dispute that the sale certificate has to be drawn on the required stamp paper as per Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. If a sale certificate is produced by the purchaser for the purpose of registration, then in such circumstances, the Sub-Registrar is entitled to demand the purchaser to pay the stamp duty under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, But, in the instant case, the petitioner being the purchaser has not presented the document for registration. But, the Recovery Officer has only sent a copy of the sale certificate for the purpose of filing in Book I. In such circumstances, the Sub-Registrar cannot demand either the petitioner or the Tax Recovery Officer to pay the stamp duty under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, since no original sale certificate has been produced before the Sub-Registrar requesting him to register the document.
7. The learned Government Pleader further submits that in the event, if the original sale certificate is produced for any reason either before any Court or before any other authority, in such circumstances either the Court or the authority concerned are required to impound the document and call upon the petitioner or his successors to pay the duty or penalty by sending the same for adjudication.
8. Such a question need not be considered at this stage as such situation has not arisen in this case. It is needless to say that if the original sale certificate is produced either before the Court or before any other authority for the purpose of marking the document for evidence or for any other purpose, in such circumstances the Court or the authorities may take action in accordance with the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. But, it is premature to contend that the petitioner is required to pay the stamp duty under Article 15 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on the ground that when the copy of the sale certificate is sent by the Recovery Officer for the purpose of filing in Book I as required under Section 39(4) of the Registration Act.
9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar, Mercara as per Annexure-A is quashed. A direction is issued to the Sub-Registrar to keep the copy of the sale certificate sent by the Recovery Officer in Book I by filing the same as required under Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.