WP/25719/2010 of K.K.FLATS (P) LTD., Vs THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF on 23 December 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

K.K.Flats (P) Ltd.,rep by its Managing DirectorD.Muthukumar PETITIONER

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the firstrespondent herein to release the document bearing No.2000 of 2005 onthe file of the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, in respect of the propertyof an extent of 0.10 acres ¾ cents comprised in R.S.Nos.75 and 76.

This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may bepleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents torelease the document bearing document No.2000 of 2005, on the file ofthe third respondent, relating to the property comprised inR.S.Nos.75 and 76, having an extent of 0.10 acres ¾ cents.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner had purchased anhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/extent of 0.10 acres ¾ cents of land, in R.S.Nos.75 and 76, for thesale consideration of Rs.4,40,750/-, under a registered sale deedbearing document No.2000 of 2005, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, the third respondent herein. However, the said documenthad not been released, as it had been referred for an enquiry underSection 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. While so, a ProvisionalAssessment Order had been passed by the second respondent, on15.9.2006, by valuing the property in question at Rs.19,92,000/-. Thepetitioner had been asked to pay the deficit stamp duty ofRs.1,23,260/-. Thereafter, the second respondent had conducted a spotinspection. He had found that the lands in question were situated atthe river bank and there was no proper approach road and that theland is situated 10 feet below the road surface. However, by anorder, dated 9.10.2006, he had confirmed the Provisional Assessmentstating that the adjacent lands, wherein, residential plots had beenconstructed, are valuable lands and therefore, the petitioner is topay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,23,260/-.

3. It has been further stated that the order of the secondrespondent, dated 9.10.2006, had been challenged by the petitioner,by way of an appeal filed before the first respondent, on 18.10.2006.Since, the first respondent had not disposed of the appeal, thepetitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court,in W.P.No.2427 of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated, 9.3.2010,had directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal, within aperiod of eight weeks. Pursuant to the said order, the firstrespondent had disposed of the appeal by his order, dated 18.5.2010,confirming the order of the second respondent, fixing a sum of Rs.355per sq.ft. as the value for the property in question. The petitionerhad been directed to pay the deficit stamp duty with interest at 2%per month.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent had filedan appeal, in C.M.A.No.1554 of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated6.7.2010, had allowed the appeal, holding that the respondents hadnot proved that the sale deed in question had been undervalued.Thereafter, the petitioner had made representations to the first andthe second respondents, on 21.9.2010, enclosing a copy of the order,dated 6.7.2010, made in C.M.A.No.1554 of 2010, requesting him torelease the sale deed bearing document NO.2000 of 2005. Even thoughno appeal had been filed challenging the order of this Court, made inC.M.A.No.1554 of 2010, the respondents had not released the documentin question, till date. In such circumstances, the petitioner hadpreferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article226 of the Constitution of India.

5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted, on instructions, that the respondentswould be filing an appeal against the order, dated 6.7.2010, made inC.M.A.No.1554 of 2010. Therefore, the third respondent had notreleased the sale deed, bearing document No.2000 of 2005.

6. He had further submitted that even if this Court is pleasedto direct the respondents to release the document in question, it maybe observed that the respondents would be entitled to proceed againsthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the property of the petitioner, for collection of the deficit stampduty, after the issue is finally decided.

7. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made bythe learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as wellas the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, thisCourt finds it appropriate to direct the third respondent to releasethe sale deed, bearing document No.2000 of 2005, within fifteen daysfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is madeclear that it would be open to the respondents to proceed against theproperty in question after the issue relating to the payment ofdeficit stamp duty by the petitioner is finally decided by theappropriate court of law, as per the relevant provisions of theIndian Stamp Act, 1899, including Section 48 of the said Act. Thewrit petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

Sd/

Asst.Registrar

/true copy/

Sub Asst.Registrar

lan

To: