M. Krishnan and others vs The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and two others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Mad) 1248

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
M. Krishnan and others
Versus
The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and two others
W.P. Nos 15883 to 15886 of 1997, 11952 and 11953 of 1997, 12589 to 12594 of 1997, 13660 of 1997, 15499 to 15510 of 1997, 12495 to 12498 of 1997 and 15640 of 1997 to 15651 of 1997 of and W.M.P.Nos 25183 to 25186 of 1997, 19305 & 19306 of 1997,20108 to 20111 of 1997,24629 to 24640 of 1997,20264 to 20269 of 1997,28824 to 24835 of 1997 and 21925 of 1997
Decided On :Decided on : 06-11-1997

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. D. Krishnakumar Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. D. Murugesan, S.G.P. Mrs. T. Kokilavani G.A Advocate for Respondents.

Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 61(2) - STAMP ACT - SECTION 47-A - INSTRUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE - RELEASE OF BENAMI RIGHT OR SETTLEMENT - REGISTERING OFFICER - REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY NOT TRULY SET FORTH - REFERENCE TO COLLECTOR - LIMITATION - TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF REGISTRATION - REGISTERING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE REFERENCE AFTER TWO YEARS - COLLECTOR CANNOT ENTERTAIN REFERENCE AFTER TWO YEARS - REGISTERING OFFICER TO RELEASE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FORTHWITH.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the non-delivery of original sale deeds and deeds of conveyance by the third respondent, the Registering Officer. The Registering Officer had registered the documents and assigned document numbers to each of the deeds of conveyance and registration was completed. However, the petitioners were not provided with the original documents. The Registering Officer contended that the documents were under-valued and that a reference had been made to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act for determination of the market value of the property and the proper stamp duty payable thereon.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Registering Officer had no jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act after a period of two years from the date of registration. The Court further held that the Collector could not entertain such a reference after two years from the date of registration. The Court directed the Registering Officer to release the original documents forthwith to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registering Officer can make a reference to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act after a period of two years from the date of registration? 2. Whether the Collector can entertain such a reference after two years from the date of registration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Registering Officer has to 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 Stamp Act. 2. The Court held 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.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the Registering Officer to release the original documents forthwith to the petitioners.

Judgment :-

1. This Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents and the respondents have also filed a counter, besides produced the documents.

2. Common arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. D. Murugesan, Special Government Pleader and Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Government Advocate for the respondents. It is sufficient to refer to the facts relation to one of the writ petitions.

3. W.P.Nos. 15883, 15884, 11952, 11953, 12495, 12496, 12497,12498, 15499 to 15510 of 1997 relate to deeds of conveyance executed in favour of the writ petitioners and they have been respectively registered as deeds of sale by the third respondent as document 3159, 3166, 3170, 3158, 3161, 3169, 3171, 3162, 3178, 3177, 3175, 3174, 3173, 3172, 3168, 3167, 3160, 3165, 3164 and 3163 of 1995. Admittedly, the registration of these documents has been completed.

4. W.P. No. 13660 of 1997 relates to a deed of compromise in respect of P. No. 55 of 1997.

5. W.P.Nos. 15885, 15886, 12589, 12590, 12591, 12592, 12593, 12594, 12640, 12648, 12649, 12650, 12651 of 1997 respectively relate to deeds of release registered as document Nos. 1238, 1250, 1241,1255, 1253, 1248, 1242, 1240, 1237, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1249, 1251, 1252, 1254, 1256, and 1257 of 1997 on the file of the very same third respondent.

6. According to the petitioner, in W.P. No. 12589 of 1997, he had purchased a small extent of vacant site comprised in Door No. 406, 407 of Perundhurai Road, Erode from the vendors for valuable consideration. A release deed was also executed by the releasor on 15.3.1996 and it was also presented before the third respondent herein for registration on 27.3.1996.

7. The third respondent herein, after being satisfied with the execution and presentation of the documents, had duly registered the same and assigned a separate document number to each of the deeds of conveyance and registration has been completed by the third respondent.

8. According to the petitioner, he had been approaching the second and third respondents for more than twenty times for return of the original deed of conveyance/release deed so also the other writ petitioners. The second and third respondents have been keeping silent and ignored the petitioners, request and for reasons best known to them, they are intentionally keeping silent and they have not delivered the sale deeds even after completion of registration.

9. No reason has been assigned or disclosed by the respondents for withholding the documents from 27.3.1996 onwards. The petitioner caused a legal notice on 23.6.1997 calling upon the respondents to release the original documents of conveyance and release deeds as well, besides pointing out that non-delivery of original documents is not only causing inconvenience but also prejudice to the petitioner.

10. According to the petitioner, after receipt of legal notice dated 23.6.1997, the third respondent had sent a reply in his office K. Dis. No. 5267/97 dated 23.6.1997 and even the said reply is not specific. However, it is obvious that the respondents are, without any justifiable reason or cause, keeping silent.

11. The petitioner having invested huge amount in the purchase, is being deprived of his valuable rights by the inaction on the part of the respondents and he is unable to raise loan for want of original documents.

12. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition No. 12589 of 1997 has been filed praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to deliver the original registered release deed document No. 1241 of 1996 dated 27.3.1996 on the file of the third respondent. Other petitioners have also filed writ petitions with respect to the deeds of conveyance executed in their favour.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the non-delivery of the original sale deeds as well as the deeds of conveyance by the third respondent is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, without authority

Click Here to Read the rest of this document