SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 3523

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
T.D. Rajasekaran
Versus
The Inspector General, Department of Registration, Chennai & Others
W.P. Nos.17951 & 17952 of 2009 & M.P. Nos.1 + 1 of 2009
Decided On : 03-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Karthikeyan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: V. Arun, Additional Government Pleader.

Technical non-compliance with appeal form requirements cannot be a ground for rejecting the appeal, and failure to serve notice and communicate the order cannot stand in the way of granting substantial justice.

Headnote:

Indian Stamp Act - Sale Deeds - Section 47(A) - Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased lands and was subjected to proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act for suspicion of under-valuation. The petitioner challenged the proceedings and subsequent appeal rejection by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The Court set aside the appeal rejection, citing failure to serve notice and communicate the order, and remanded the matter for consideration on merit and in accordance with law.

Issues: Validity of proceedings under Section 47(A), compliance with Rule 9(2) of the Rules, and delay in filing the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to serve notice and communicate the order, and technical non-compliance with appeal form requirements cannot stand in the way of granting substantial justice.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent for consideration on merit and in accordance with law.

Judgment :-

In respect of the sale deeds executed on 23. 1994 and 13. 1995 respectively by which the petitioner purchased the lands for a sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- each, the proceedings under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was initiated by the Registering Authority, 5th respondent herein on the ground that there was a suspicion about under-valuation of the property, by referring the same to the third respondent/District Revenue Officer (Stamp Duty).

2. It appears that the third respondent has passed an order on 30.10.2001 under Section 47(A)(1) of the Act, directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.66,024/- and Rs.94,440/- respectively. The grievance of the petitioner was that no notice was served on the petitioner in Form No.1 before the third respondent proceeded with the enquiry under Section 47(A)(1) of the Act and a copy of the order dated 30.10.2001 passed by the third respondent was also not communicated to him.

3. However, sometimes, in the year 2003, there was a distraint proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar. As against the said distraint notice dated 210. 2003, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of filing W.P. Nos.35247 and 35248 of 2003 and thereafter, it was informed that the aforesaid order under Section 47A of the Act came to be passed on 30.10.2001 itself. In those circumstances, this Court, while disposing of the said writ petitions by an order dated 12. 2008, set aside the distraint proceedings and directed the respondents to communicate the order passed by the third respondent under Section 47A of the Act and thereafter giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order in the manner known to law.

4. After the said order was passed by this Court, the petitioner, by a notice dated 4. 2008, addressed to the District Revenue Officer (Stamp Duty), has requested the third respondent to communicate the copy of the order. It is stated that the order copy was ultimately communicated by the third respondent on 2. 2009, that is evidenced by a covering letter of the third respondent, District Revenue Officer (Stamp Duty) addressed to the petitioner on 30.1.2009, enclosing a copy of the notice dated 30.10.2001.

5. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent, who is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, under Section 47A of the Act on 23. 2009 and that the said appeal has been filed within two months from the date of communication of the order of the third respondent dated 30.1.2009.

6. The first respondent, being the Appellate Authority, passed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on two grounds viz. the appeal has been filed seven years after the original order was passed by the third respondent and that the appeal has not been filed in the proper form as required under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") in the sense that the original or certified copy of the order appealed against has not been enclosed and the appeal has not been filed in the format prescribed in the Rules.

7. On a reference to the appeal stated to have been filed by the petitioner, it is seen that in the appeal, while the petitioner has raised all the points on merit in respect of the alleged under-valuation, the fact remains that the appeal has not been filed in the proper form. Rule 9(2) and (3) of the Rules contemplates the particulars to be furnished in the appeal, which are as follows:-

“9(2) An appeal shall be made in duplicate and shall contain the following particulars namely:-

(a) full name, fathers name or husbands name, occupation and address of the appellant:

(b) full name, fathers name or husbands name, occupation and address of every person executing the instrument;

(c) full name, fathers name or husbands name, occupation and address of every person claiming under the instrument;

(d) date and n
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top