Kerala High Court
A.Navas Khan vs State Of Kerala on 18 June, 2014
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/28TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 22789 of 2010 (W)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
------------------
A.NAVAS KHAN, 31 BHARATHI ULA ROAD,
RECECOURSE, MADURAI, PIN-625 002
TAMILNADU STATE.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.ALTHAF
SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN (KAYAMKULAM)
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE CHEIF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
3. THE SUB REGISTRAR,
PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVEENDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 22789 of 2010 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2774/2009 DT 21/10/2009 OF THE PEERMADE
SUB REGISTRY.
P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2144 DT 9/6/2003 OF THE PEERMADE SUB
REGISTRY.
P3: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 533 DT 5/4/2002 OF THE PEERMADE SUB
REGISTRY.
P4: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1874/1997 OF THE PEERMADE SUB REGISTRY
DT 3/7/97.
P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE VENDOR OF THE PETITIONER BY
THE PEERMADE VILLAGE OFFICE FOR THE YEAR 2009.
P6: COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED DT 15/1/2010.
P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 29/1/2010 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
P8: COPY OF THE REPLY DT 15/2/2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
DISTRICT REGISTRAR.
P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR IDUKKI DT 19/5/2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 22789 of 2010
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 18th day of June, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext. P9 order issued by the District Registrar in respect of an enquiry under Section 31 (1) of the Kerala Stamp Act (for short "the Act').
2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 rectification deed dated 15.1.2010 for correcting a typographical error occurred in documents with reference to Exts. P1 to P3 documents. The mistake, according to him, was in regard to the survey number. The document was impounded by the Sub Registrar and forwarded to the District Registrar for further proceedings in terms of Section 33(1) of the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext. P8 objection to the District Registrar and without considering the same, Ext. P9 order came to be passed. The authority imposed stamp duty of Rs. 1,23,500/- and corresponding registration fee in terms of Section 33(1) of the Act.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there is no alteration in the basic nature of the document, especially with regard to the extent and valuation of the property. The rectification is only in respect of a typographical error, which had occurred in the W.P(C) No. 22789 of 2010 -: 2 :
survey number. The actual measurement remains unchanged and therefore there is no necessity to pay stamp duty under Article 21 of the Act.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent inter alia stating that though the document is styled as a rectification deed in which alteration of the survey number is made, it amounts to a substantial change involving property rights of the parties and therefore it has to be treated as conveyance coming under Article 21 of the Act. They supported the stand taken by the authorities in terms of Ext. P9.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
6. A reference to the rectification deed would indicate that the petitioner, along with two others, purchased property in Sy. No. 25/1B1 having an extent of 5.54 ares and 4.05 ares in Sy. No. 23/1A2 as per sale deed No. 2774/2009 from one Ansari. The prior document is sale deed No. 2144/2003,whereby the said Ansari derived title in respect of the aforesaid property from one Joseph. Joseph's title deed is Ext. P3 sale deed No. 533/2002. He purchased the property from one Chandran Pillai, who derived right in respect of the property coming under Sy. No. 25/1B1 as per partition deed No. 1799/1965. In the said deed, according to W.P(C) No. 22789 of 2010 -: 3 :
the petitioner, the survey number of the property was shown as 25/1A instead of 25/1B1. In respect of the balance land having an extent of 4.05 ares, Chandran Pillai got title as per sale deed No. 1874/1997. It is indicated that when the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for effecting mutation, it was revealed that the survey number of the property is mistakenly shown as Sy. No. 23/1A2 instead of 23/1B1. The said mistake continued to exist since 1997, is the contention of the petitioner. It is therefore clear from the averments in the writ petition that though the property having an extent of 5.54 ares is situated in Sy. No. 25/1A, as per the document of title, it is situated in Sy. No. 25/1B1 and in respect of 4.04 ares, the property is shown as situated in Sy. No. 23/1A2, whereas, actually, it is in Sy. No. 25/1B1. This is what is sought to be rectified by the petitioner in terms with Ext. P6. Reference to Ext. P6 indicates that the rectification is sought for in respect of document No. 2774/2009, ie. Ext. P1. The executants are Ramakrishna Pillai and Chandran Pillai. Apparently, they are not parties to Ext. P1 deed, which is sought to be corrected. Therefore they have no right to execute any rectification deed as such. What they have virtually done is to assign or convey their interest in the W.P(C) No. 22789 of 2010 -: 4 :
property which they have obtained as per Ext. P5 sale deed and partition deed in favour of the petitioner by referring to the mistakes in the survey numbers. Under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the Sub Registrar referring the matter to the District Registrar in terms of Section 33(1) of the Act. Consequently, the findings of the District Registrar that the executants of Ext. P6 have nothing to do with document No. 2774/2009 is absolutely correct and cannot be faulted with. Hence, when the right, title and interest in respect of a property is conveyed, necessary stamp duty and registration fee have to be paid as per the valuation under Article 21 of the Act.
In the said circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext. P9 order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/