IMPORTANT POINT
Penal statute cannot be given retrospective effect.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation and/ or application of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu is in question herein. It arises out of the following factual matrix: Appellants herein purchased some properties situate in Devala Village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris in the State of Tamil Nadu by a registered deed of sale dated 1.02.1990. Some lands are situated in the State of Kerala also. The details of the lands purchased by them in the State of Tamil Nadu are as under:

Sl. No. Name of the purchaser Survey No. Extent Doc.No. and date

1. C.J. Paul, Malapuram 146, 147/2,2,3 44.00 Acres 382/90 -2.2.90

2. C.P. Jose, Malapuram -do- 44.01 Acres 381/90 -2.2.90

3. V.M. Mary, Malapuram -do- 44.00 Acres 383/90 -2.2.90

4. C.J. Mathews, Malapuram -do- 44.00 Acres 384/90 -2.2.90

3. The Sub - Registrar, Gudalur came to know of the execution of the said deeds of sale on or about 30.03.1996. It initiated a proceeding purported to be under Section 47A (1) of the Act and Section 19B thereof. The proceedings were initiated for collection of deficit stamp duty on or about 5.05.1998 by issuing a letter to the then Collector under the Act. However, notice in Form I was sent on 7.06.1998.

4. Appellants filed a writ petition questioning the legality of said notice. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, stating:

“12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that all the transactions appear to be not bonafide and many questions in reference to the nature and purport of these transactions remain unanswered like for instance. Why when the family members get a sale deed in respect of about 176 acres in Tamil Nadu they should go to Kerala to combine with a sale of 16 cents, as to why the vendor father Thomas assignee of these lands should purchase 16 cents on 04.09.1990 so as to sell the lands in Tamil Nadu. After lands having vested as per Section 3 of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXIV of 1969) Jenmis are entitled only ryotwari patta if they had been cultivating on the appointed day i.e. on 01.06.1969, and for the tenants under Jenmis if they had been personally cultivating. In this case one Mathew Kutty is said to have purchased in the year 1967 and in turn sold to Father Thomas. All these prima facie appears are made with ulterior purpose.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the judgment in M. Ponnusamy & Others Vs. District Collector (1992) 2 Law Weekly 231, wherein a learned Judge of this Court has taken the view that reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Act should be immediately after completion of the registration or sooner the registration is completed and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of completion of registration of the document. The said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioners were called upon to pay the difference of duty immediately after receipt of document in their office and a reference notice was issued to the petitioners which are impugned in these writ petitions in the year 1998 itself and after enquiry, the Deputy Collector has passed an order determining the market value in November, 2000. Hence, no question of limitation arises in these matters.”

5. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst and a Division Bench of the High court, by reason of the impugned order, dismissed the said appeals, stating:

“5. It is not in dispute that the properties covered under the documents lie within the State of Tamil Nadu. But the documents were registered at Kalpetta, Kerala State. As per Section 19-B(1) of the Act, unless such instrument is received in the State of Tamil Nadu, no action can be taken for undervaluation. The learned Single Judge, by relying on the said provision and after noting that those documents registered in February, 1990, were received by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Gudalur only