B. Rajappa And Anr.

vs The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) The

Office Of The
Collectorate (V Floor), Mr. Singaravelar Maligai Rajaji Salai,
Madras-1
And 2 Ors. on 5/4/2002
ORDER
E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. In W.P. No.22998 of 2001, the petitioner prays for the
issue of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
relating to the
proceedings in Tha.Ka.No.97 of 2000 dated 10.4.2000 and the
consequential notice made in Rc.S.R.97 of 2001-A1 dated
24.9.2001
issued by the first respondent purported to be under Section
47A(1) of
the Indian Stamp Act and quash the same and direct the
respondents to
release the sale deed dated 10.2.2000 registered as document
No.262 of
2000 with the office of the 2nd respondent.
2. In W.P. No. 8637 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the
issue of
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to return the sale
deed
registered on 26.12.2001 as Document No. 2701 of 2001.
3. The points raised in both the writ petitions are identical.
This
Court ordered notice of motion in both the writ petitions on
different
dates and the respondents have been served. As identical writ
petitions
are being filed, this Court directed notice to the learned
Advocate
General. On notice from this Court, the learned Advocate
General
appeared. The learned Advocate General has also the necessary
instructions in these cases as well, besides in other
connected cases
to appeal and make his submissions.
4. Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner
in W.P. No.22998 of 2001 and Mr.R.Murugan, learned counsel
appearing
for the petitioner in W.P. No.8637 of 2002 and
Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned

Advocate General appearing for the respondents in both the

writ
petitions.
5. The petitioner in W.P. No.22998 of 2001 entered into an
agreement on
10.1.95 with C.T. Kumudavalli, owner of the premises bearing
Door
No.28, Govindu Street, T.Nagar, Chennai, for a consideration
of Rs.
2,30,000. The said agreement was renewed on 27.3.95. As
difference
arose between the petitioner and the owner of the premises,
the
petitioner instituted C.S. No.979 of 1995 on the original side
of this
Court, which has since been transferred to the City Civil
Court and
renumbered as O.S. No.351 of 1996. Pending the suit, the owner
Kumudavalli, entered into a compromise with the petitioner and
agreed
to execute the sale deed in terms of the sale agreement. The
petitioner
paid the balance of sale consideration. The owner executed the
sale
deed and presented it for registration with the 2nd
respondent, the
Registrar on 10.2.2000. The document has been registered as
Document
No. 262 of 2000.
6. According to the petitioner, after registration of the
document, the
petitioner was served with a notice in Form No. l by the first
respondent, dated 10.4.2000 intimating that the 2nd respondent
has
referred the document under Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp
Act for
determination of the market value of the properly. The
petitioner was
called upon to state his objections. The petitioner submitted
his
objections on 29.4.2000 and requested to drop the proceedings.
The
petitioner also furnished a copy of the decree passed by the
City Civil
Court in O.S. No.351 of 1996. The petitioner was once again
called upon
by the first respondent to appear for enquiry on 15.10.2000
and the
petitioner requested the first respondent to release the
original sale

deed immediately. The original sale deed has not been

released.
7. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no
jurisdiction
or authority to make a reference under Section 47-A(l) of The
Indian
Stamp Act and at any rate there is no jurisdiction or
justification
after completion of the registration to retain the sale deed
without
releasing the same. After registration, according to the
petitioner,
the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to refer the matter to
the first
respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily
relied upon
the judgment of this Court in support of his contention that
when once
the instrument has been registered, thereafter it is not open
to the
2nd respondent to make a reference and retain the original
instrument.
In other words, when registration has been completed, it is
not open to
the Registrar to make a reference in terms of Section 47-A(l)
of The
Indian Stamp Act as amended.
8. Identical contentions are advanced in W.P. No. 8637 of
2002.
Excepting there is some difference in the factual aspect of
the matter,
the contentions advanced are identical.
9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
respective
petitioners, the point raised in these writ petitions is
covered by the
judgment of this Court in M.Ponnusamy and 42 Ors. v. District
Collector, Erode and Ors., 1999 (2) LW 231, which judgment of
this
Court has been confirmed by the Division Bench in The District
Collector, Erode and Ors. v. M. Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 :
2001 (2)
MLJ 458, as well as an earlier Division Bench in S.P.
Padmavathi v.
State of Tamil Nadu, .
10. The learned Advocate General, while fairly admitting that
the above

pronouncements squarely applies to the facts of the present

case,
expressed his anxiety that when the original sale deeds arc to
be
released as prayed for by the petitioner, then the State's
interest to
recover deficit stamp duty will suffer and by such a direction
let not
the revenue due to the Slate by way of Stamp Duty be allowed
to be
defeated or jeopardised. Hence, the learned Advocate General
persuaded
this Court to issue appropriate directions so that neither the
interest
of the individual transferees nor the State suffers.
11. In M. Ponnusamy and 42 Ors. v. The District Collector,
Erode and
Ors., 1999 (2) LW 231, after analysing ihe statutory
provisions of The
Indian Stamp Act as well as The Registration Act, and in
particular to
Section 47-A introduced by the State Legislature, this Court
held thus
;"51) What is required under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A
of the
Indian Stamp Act is that the Registering Authority had come
to a
conclusion before registration that the market value of the
property, dealt under the instrument of conveyance or
release, has
been under-valued and he should have entertained reasonable
belief
in this respect and also, he should have recorded such a
reason.
Immediately after recording such reason, he has to complete
the
registration and thereafter refer the instruments to the
Collector
in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act.
Only in respect of the instruments which have not been
referred to
for adjudication to the Collector under Sub-Section (1) of
Section
47-A of the said Act, the Collector could exercise or invoke
suo
motu powers conferred on him under Sub-Section (3) of
Section 47-A

and had a reference been made under Section 47-A (1) of the
said Act
it, would have been answered either way by the Collector,
then it is
obvious that the Collector cannot exercise suo motu powers
in terms
of Sub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act.
52) The suo motu powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 47
of the
said Act could be exercised only in respect of those
instruments,
with respect to which no reference has been made by the
Registering
Authority in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the
said
Act and such suo motu powers have to be exercised within two
years
from the date of registration of the documents.
53) Section 47-A(l) of the Indian Stamp Act is a special
provision,
which enables the Collector to exercise suo motu powers
within two
years from the date of registration of instruments of
conveyance,
etc., and with respect to which no reference has been made
under
Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act or omitted
to be
made. Such suo molu auction has to be taken within two years
by the
Collector, otherwise, his action will be without
jurisdiction.
54) It is to be pointed out that the Collector has no powers
nor he
could exercise suo motu powers beyond two years from the
date of
registration of instruments of conveyance or release under
Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act. That being
the
statutory provision, 1 it cannot be contended that without
any time
limit, the Registering Authority could make a reference to
the
Collector in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A.
* * * * *
63) This statutory Rule enables the Registering Officer to
hold an

enquiry to find out whether the market value has been

correctly
furnished in the instrument by holding such enquiry. Such
enquiry,
as prescribed in the Rule, has to be completed before
registering
the document, as is evident from conjoint reading of Section
47-A of
the said Act read with Rule 3 of the said Rules. Therefore,
it is
evident that when a document had been registered, the
Registering
Officer i deemed to have conducted an enquiry and satisfied
himself
with respect to the market value furnished in the instrument
and
only after such satisfaction, the instrument had been
registered.
* * * * *
71) The retention of the original document after completion
of

registration of the instrument is not provided for either in

the

Indian Stamp Act or in the Registration Act or in the Rules

framed
thereunder with respect to those instruments, where a
reference
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act read with Tamil
Nadu
Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules
had been
made or is being made.
** * * *
73) The Registering Authority did not entertain any doubt,
nor he
had any reason to believe that the market value of the
property had
not been set out truly. Having completed registration, as an
after
thought, it is not open to the Registering Authority to
refer the
matter to the Collector in terms of Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp
Act and at any rate after two years.
*****

the

82) In the light of the said Division Bench pronouncement,

Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into the

market
value as disclosed in the instrument and if he had reasons
to
believe that true market value had not been disclosed in the
instrument, he has to record reasons and make a reference to
the
collector after completing the registration.
* * * * *
91) As the instruments have been registered without any
reservation
by the Registering Authority and as the Registering
Authority had
not entertained any reasonable belief with respect to the
valuation
of the properly dealt under the instruments in question, as
prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A before
completing the
registration, there cannot be a subsequent reference, much
less
after two years from the date of completion of registration.
This
court hastens to add that a reference should be made
immediately
after registration or so sooner the registration is
completed and at
any rate within three weeks from the date of completion of
registration of document to refer the instrument to the
Collector
under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act,
besides
sending a communication to the person, who is liable to pay
the
stamp duty on the instrument in question.
*****
94) In the circumstances, this court holds that the
reference made
by the Registering Officer to the Collector under Section
47-A is
arbitrary, as found under the statutory provisions and
without
jurisdiction. Hence it is accordingly quashed.
*****

96) Whenever a document is registered and referred to the

Collector
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act read with Tamil
Nadu
Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules
in the
absence of statutory Rules, the Registering Authority shall
forthwith release the original documents with an endorsement
that a
reference under Section 47-A is pending in respect of the
said
instruments.
97) At the time of release of original documents, the
Registering
Authority shall intimate the parties to the instruments that
a
reference is being made under Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamp Act
read with Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of
Instruments) Rules."
12. The said view of this Court has been affirmed by the
Division Bench
in The District Collector, Erode and Ors. v. M. Ponnusamy,
2001 (2) CTC
449 : 2001 (2) MLJ 458, wherein it has been held thus :"27) On the question of limitation, the learned Judge has
taken the
view that Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A as well as Subsection (3)
of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act applied to different
contingencies
which cannot be read conjointly nor it could be held that
the
Registering Authority could make a reference under Subsection (I)
of Section 47-A of the Act without any lime-limit nor the
contention
that the reference under Sub-section (l) of Section 47-A of
the said
Act is not controlled by limitation of two years prescribed
under
Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act is
acceptable. The
learned Judge held that the Registering Authority has not
entertained any reasonable belief with respect to valuation
of the
property as prescribed by Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A
and held
that before completing the registration, there cannot be a

subsequent reference, much less after two years from the

date of
completion of the registration. While assailing this view of
the
learned Judge, it is submit led that the Section does not
contemplate any time limit and, therefore, a reference can
be made
at any time. We are unable to countenance such a stand. In
the
absence of any lime limit provided for under Section 47-A(l)
and in
the light of the analysis of the process involved in
reference to
Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, there is no
scope for
holding that reference can be made at any point of time.
*****
32) As rightly pointed out and which we are in full
agreement, the
parties to an instrument, for various reasons, will always
be
anxious to get the document registered at the earliest point
of time
and get the document released. The parties may be in direct
need,
for completion of the registration process as early as
possible for
so many reasons like financial, health, family and other
innumerable
circumstances. They would always like to expedite the
process of
registration in order to avoid complications or litigations
or
things like that. It is rarely in few cases that the
execution is
done in a leisurely manner without any urgency whatsoever.
Taking
advantage of this plight of the parties and the varying
factors in
reference to the market value and the expression being so
uncertain
or vague or indefinite, it is not uncommon that the
registration is
delayed or even if it is registered, documents are retained.
There
are no guidelines set out to enforce uniformity or to avoid
arbitrariness in the exercise of power. Citizens are left
with no
time or energy to take up their cause in higher forums and
courts.

how a

This is taken advantage of. This case illustrates the point

document which has been registered without any whisper

whatsoever on
the market value, has been retained for more than two years
without
being returned or referred to the Collector. In our view
this case
highlights as to how arbitrariness is writ large and how it
can work
as an engine of oppression against the parties. For all the
above
reasons, we have no hesitation whatsoever in approving the
view of
the learned Judge that the document should be returned
sooner its
registration is complete, at any rate within three weeks
from the
date of completion of registration of the document or it
must be
referred within a period of three weeks to the Collector
under
Sub-section (l) of Section 47-A of the Act."
13. In the light of the said provisions, the learned Advocate
General
had to necessarily admit that the respondents have no
authority or
jurisdiction to retain the documents once it has been
registered. Even
assuming that there is scope for reference in respect of
alleged
under-valuation, the registering authority has no authority to
retain
the documents and this is also clear from the provisions of
Sections
52, 59 and 60 of The Indian Registration Act.
14. In the circumstances, while following the above
pronouncements,
these two writ petitions are allowed. Accordingly, there will
be a
direction to the Registering Authority, namely, the 2nd
respondent in
W.P. No.22998 of 2001 and the sole respondent in W.P. No.8637
of 2002,
to return the original sale deed as registered with necessary
endorsements within ten days from the date of communication of
this
order or a production of a copy of the same by the respective
petitioner.

15. While appreciating the anxiety expressed on behalf of the

State by
the learned Advocate General, this Court directs that :while

"i) It is open to the Registering Authority to affix a seal,

releasing the original deed or conveyance or any other

document
indicating that a reference is pending under Section 47-A
with
respect to under-valuation and assessment of Stamp Duly
payable, as
and when the proceedings reach finality, the same shall be
intimated
to the person who is liable to pay stamp duty demanding
payment of
deficit Stamp Duty payable on the instrument.
ii) The Registrar to make corresponding entries under
Sections 54,
55 of The Registration Act, 1908, in the Register of indexes
as to
pendency of proceedings under Section 47-A.
iii) On completion of adjudication as to the under-valuation
by the
competent authority as well as appeal or revision, if any,
thereof,
and depending upon the ultimate decision, the said
authorities to
recover deficit stamp duly according to law.
iv) Till such proceeding reaches finality and deficit is
paid, there
will be a charge for the deficit stamp duly, which is the
subject
matter of transfer or conveyance.
v) On payment of deficit stamp duty, if any payable, the
Registrar
may once again, on production of the original deed of
transfer, make
appropriate entry and recording the additional stamp duty
paid and
release of charge and also make consequential entries in the
registers/indexes maintained under Sections 54, 55, etc., of
The
Registration Act."
16. Before parting with the case, with heavy heart, this Court
has to

point out that neither the State Government nor the Chief
Controlling
Authority had intimated about the law laid down by the
Division Bench
of this Court and the Registrars have been flouting the dicta
laid down
by this Court with impunity. Such violations arc per se
contemptuous.
This Court pointed out this to the learned Advocate General,
who in
turn relied upon certain circulars issued, but they are not
towards
compliance with pronouncements and in conformity with the
judgment of
the Division Bench. However, this Court takes a lenient view
in this
respect, in view of the fair stand taken and explanation
offered by the
learned Advocate General.
17. This Court directs that the Inspector General of
Registration shall
issue a circular setting out the directions issued by this
Court to all
the Registrars in the State and procedure to be followed by
drawing
their attention to the law laid down by the above
pronouncements and
that any infraction by any of the Registrars will be viewed
seriously.