Kerala High Court
Poozhikuthu Ummusalma vs The Sub Registrar
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934
WP(C).No. 17085 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------
POOZHIKUTHU UMMUSALMA,
W/O.ADIKARATHIL ABDUL HAMEED, ADIKARATHIL HOUSE
KARUVAMBRAM WEST P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
PIN - 676123.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676123.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM-676505.
R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MUHAMEMD SHAH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-10-2012, THE COURT ON 15-10-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 17085 of 2012 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT
EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2011.
EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.6.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.17085 Of 2012
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the communication issued by the Sub Registrar as per Exhibit P6, which according to the petitioner refuses to adopt the fair value re-fixed by the District Collector as per Exhibit P4.
2. The circumstances leading to the dispute are the following:
The petitioner purchased an extent of 12 cents of land in RE-survey No.245/2 of Narukara Village for a consideration of Rs.6,81,000/-. The documents were presented before the 1st respondent for registration on 14.11.2011. At the time of presenting the document for registration the value was shown as Rs.1,40,000/- for one Are of property and accordingly the document was prepared in the stamp paper worth Rs.54,500/-.
3. By invoking Section 45A(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the Sub Registrar directed the petitioner as per Exhibit P2 order to remit additional stamp duty. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the District Collector, which appeal has been disposed of by Exhibit P4. In Exhibit P4, the fair value was fixed by the 2nd respondent as Rs.1,97,600/-. For getting the benefit of Exhibit P4 W.P.(C)No17085/12 -2- order, the petitioner submitted an application along with the said order and requested to return the documents in favour of the petitioner by Exhibit P5. Finally, the Sub Registrar took the view that even though fair value has been re-fixed, the petitioner will not get the benefit of the same, since the fair value, continued as initially fixed upto the date of Exhibit P4, viz; 29.3.2012.
4. Both respondents have filed separate statements.
5. Heard parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K.M.Sathyanatha Menon submitted that the appeal is one filed by the petitioner under Section 45(4) of the Stamp Act. It is submitted that as far as the fixation of fair value is concerned, under the relevant Rules, an appeal under Section 28A(4) is permitted and in terms of the procedure under Rule 5 an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 45A is covered by the procedure under Rule 7. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner's appeal being under sub-section 4 of Section 45A, the reasoning adopted by the Sub Registrar is not correct.
7. The learned Government Pleader Shri Muhammed Shah submitted that as far as the order passed by the District Collector is concerned, what was ordered is the re-fixation of the fair value. Nothing has been indicated as to how the benefit of re-fixation should be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the view taken by the Sub W.P.(C)No17085/12 -3- Registrar is correct.
8. In the statement filed, the Sub Registrar has reiterated the stand and has relied upon Section 17 of the Stamp Act also in the matter.
9. A reading of Exhibit P4 will show that the District Collector considered mainly the scope of re-fixation of fair value; but the relief sought for by the petitioner in the appeal to direct the Sub Registrar to register the document after re-fixation of fair value has not been considered or dealt with. Even though a statement has been filed on behalf of the District Collector, nothing has been mentioned about these aspects and as to how the re-fixation will have to be applied in respect of the document executed by the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter may be directed to be considered by the District Collector for necessary orders and clarifications, so that the petitioner will not be denied the benefit.
11. In the light of the above factual scenario, the District Collector alone will have to clarify the position. Accordingly there will be a direction to the District Collector to clarify how and in what manner the re-fixation will have to be applied, as far as the petitioner is concerned, and whether the stand of the Sub Registrar that even if there is re-fixation of the fair value, the stamp duty as far as the W.P.(C)No17085/12 -4- document herein is concerned will have to be governed by the date of execution and not by the date of re-fixation of fair value. The District Collector also will clarify whether the re-fixation now made will have any retrospective effect from the date of the original notification fixing the fair value as far as the petitioner is concerned. Needless to say, the District Collector will have to pass an order in terms of Section 45A(5) treating the appeal as one filed under Section 45A(4). Appropriate orders will be passed, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn