Mr M Gopalakrishna Melanta vs The Commissioner Of Stamps For ... on 16 August, 2012

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr M Gopalakrishna Melanta vs The Commissioner Of Stamps For ... on 16 August, 2012

Equivalent citations: 2013 AIR CC 28 (KAR), 2012 (4) AIR KAR R 721 AIR 2013 (NOC) (SUPP) 1232 (KAR.), AIR 2013 (NOC) (SUPP) 1232 (KAR.)

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

                              -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

                           BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

    WRIT PETITION NO.18029 OF 2012 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN :

M. Gopalakrishna Melanta
S/o late B.Y. Doomanna Melanta
Aged 58 years
Bijai, Mangalore, D.K.                            ..Petitioner

(By Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, Adv.,)

AND :

1. The Commissioner of Stamps
   for Karnataka, Shimshabhavan
   Jalamandali Bhavan
   8th Block, Jayanagar
   Bangalore-56.

2. The District Registrar of Stamps
   & Registration, D.C. Office Compound
   Mangalore-575001, D.K.                      ..Respondents

(By Sri Narendra Prasad, HCGP.,)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records in
STP-51/11-12 on the file of the first respondent and to set
                              -2-


aside the endorsement dated 21.9.2011 on the file of first
respondent vide Annexure-E and etc.,

      This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day the Court made the following:-



                         ORDER

By the impugned order at Annexure-E, dated 21.9.2011, respondent No.1 has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner filed under Section 53 of the Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

2. The records reveal that the first respondent has passed the order as per Annexure-C, dated 23.2.2011 and directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty of Rs.1,04,208/- in respect of the tender agreement. The evaluation is made under Articles 30 and 32-A of the Act. Petitioner being aggrieved by the -3- said evaluation at Annexure-C, filed petition under Section 53 of the Act before the first respondent. He has termed the said petition as revision. The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order by the first respondent on the ground that it may not be necessary to continue the proceedings under Section 53 of the Act.

3. Sri Ariga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there appears typographical error has crept in the memorandum of revision. Appropriate provision ought to be mentioned is Section 53-A and not Section 53 of the Act.

4. Learned Government Advocate submits that it is discretionary on the part of the first respondent either to proceed under Section 53 of the Act or not. -4-

5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has mentioned wrong provision of law while filing the revision petition before the first respondent. Though the petition is termed as revision, the petitioner has mentioned the provision as Section 53 of the Act, but he ought to have mentioned the provision of the revision petition as Section 53-A of the Act. This view is taken by me keeping in mind the stakes involved in this writ petition. The petitioner cannot be non-suited because of technical mistake. Accordingly, the following order is made:-

Impugned endorsement dated 21.9.2011 vide Annexure-E stands quashed. The first respondent is directed to treat the petition filed by the petitioner on 21.4.2011 as the one filed under Section 53-A of the -5- Act and shall decide the same as per law after hearing the petitioner.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE *ck/nk-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court