← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21984/2008allowed

Mr.H.M. Sultan Mohideen v. District Revenue Officer

2022-11-04Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 4/11/2022 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR a n d M.P.No.1 of 2008 H.M.Sultan Mohideen ...

Petitioner Vs

1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Fifth Floor, Collector Office Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001.

2. The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

...

Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 18/8/2008 passed in Na.Ka.C.Pa.16/06/A1 by the first respondent and quash the same.

Page No:1/6

For Petitioner ...

Mr.A.Ramkumar for M/s.Varam Legal Counsel For respondents ...

Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order, dated 18/8/2008 passed in Na.Ka.C.Pa.16/06/A1 by the first respondent

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:- The property bearing No.24 (Old No.9), Rajasekara Mudaliar Road, Mylapore, measuring an extent of 3 grounds and 3 sq.ft belonged to Mr.S.Rajavel and his two minor sons. Likewise, property bearing Door No.3, Old Door No.60/6, Ninth Street, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4, belonged to Mr.S.Rajavel and his two minor sons. The said S.Rajavel is entitled to 16/24 shares and minors are entitled to 22/24 shares over the said property. The petitioner has purchased 16/24 shares in the property and it is the contention of the writ petitioner that the petitioner had Page No:2/6

paid proper guideline value. Whereas the respondents have collected guideline value for Both the property abetting the street, where the petitioner has no access from the street i.e., from the vacant site. Hence sought to quash the impugned order passed under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. Heard Mr.A.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that Samadhan scheme was introduced in the year 2007. The petitioner has stated that he had opted for Samadhan Scheme, but he had not utilised the benefits in the appropriate manner and hence, he was ineligible to claim under Samadhan Scheme, since Document No.613/06 was sent to SubRegistrar's Office, Mylapore, on 10/5/2007, to enable the petitioner to get benefit of the scheme.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent sent impugned order on 18/8/2008, directing the petitioner to Page No:3/6

pay the additional stamp duty for Rs.11,76,360/-. After receiving the impugned order, petitioner had sent his objection. But in the impugned order, it is stated that no reply was received. This itself clearly proves that the said impugned order is passed with non-application of mind.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has not availed the benefit of Samadhan scheme, despite the notice sent, under Section 47 A of the said Act. Moreover, the first respondent has finalised the deficit stamp duty, under Section 47 A (1) of the said Act and there is no deviation.

7. Considering the fact that property situate in S.No.1075/3 and 1075/5 wherein, the vendor of the petitioner had 16/24 shares, whereas, the remaining shares of 8/24 was sold and subsequently, by way of sale deed, dated 24/4/2006, the property has been registered on the value set out in the document and there was no reference under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the first respondent had passed the impugned order, without following proper procedure.

Page No:4/6

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 18/8/2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps)/first respondent for passing fresh orders, on consideration of the entire materials. The first respondent shall issue necessary notice to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner shall produce all the relevant document including the sale deed, dated 24/4/2006, for better appreciation. The said exercise shall be carried out, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 4/11/2022 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order mvs.

Page No:5/6

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J mvs.

To

1. The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Fifth Floor, Collector Office Rajaji Salai Chennai 600 001.

2. The Sub-Registrar Office of the Sub-Registrar Mylapore Chennai 600 004.

W.P.No.21984 of 2008 4/11/2022 Page No:6/6