Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
R. Mathiazhagan & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Inspector General Office, Chennai & Others - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos. 2319 to 2322 of 2016 & CMP Nos. 16316 to 16319 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47 A (10) – Enquiry - Inspector General of Registration-cum-Principal Revenue Controlling Officer - Appellants in had purchased undivided share of agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Acres Village in Salem District a registered sale deed from one and besides said property appellants had also purchased other adjacent lands documents vide Document balance undivided share lands were purchased others - Appellants in had purchased undivided share agricultural lands measuring a total extent Village in Salem District a registered sale deed from one and besides the said property appellants had also purchased other adjacent lands documents vide Document –Held, Court has got no power condone delay even one day beyond period prescribed under the said act Once a statute prescribes period limitation for initiation of action same should be initiated within prescribed mandatory period unless Act itself provides for of such limitation within which the authorities or courts can exercise powers condone such delay - As such it is clear from statute that five years period prescribed for initiation revision by respondent as against decision taken by respondent herein who initially passed orders Section early as was complied by appellants itself act has provided wider limitation of five years for initiating revision and reason for such wider period is that Government should not lose revenue authorities cannot sleep over matter and take decision and they ought to have taken steps before expiry period of limitation provided Act Court is of considered view that action taken by respondent in issuing a show cause notice with regard to beyond mandatory period of five years and is without jurisdiction and orders passed on basis of such show cause notice and subsequent enquiry conducted also cannot stand scrutiny in present appeals - That apart orders passed on the basis of the inspection conducted based on show cause notice which was issued beyond the mandatory period cannot also in consonance with the act hence the impugned order passed by respondent is vitiated for violation of mandatory provisions prescribed Act and accordingly same is set aside - Since impugned order is set aside on ground of jurisdictional error this Court is not inclined to deal with merits of decision rendered by respondent with regard revisional value fixed based on the report submitted by respondent – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in C.M.A.Nos.2319 and 2320 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 47 A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act to set aside the order dated 15.10.2015 passed in No.Ka.No.43558/UI/10, on the file of 1st respondent / the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Principal Revenue Controlling Officer, Chennai respectively.
C.M.A.Nos.2321 and 2322 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 47 A (10) of the Indian Stamps Act to set aside the order dated 29.09.2015 passed in No.Ka.No.20721/U1/10 and No.Ka.No.20721/U1/10 respectively, on the file of 1st respondent/the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Principal Revenue Controlling Officer, Chennai respectively.)
1. Since the issues involved in these appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by the appellants are as follows:
(ii) The Appellants in C.M.A.No.2320 of 2016 had purchased the undivided share of 34% in the agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Acres 21.81 in the Valappadi Village in Salem District under a registered sale deed dated 26-07-2006 (Document No.1516 of 2007) from one Smt. R.Rajamanickam and besides the said property, the appellants had also purchased other adjacent lands under the documents dated 26.07.2006 vide Document Nos.1517 and 1518 of 2007. Under document No.1566 of 2007 dated 07.08.2006 the balance 66% undivided share lands were purchased by R.Mathizhagan and others.
(iii) The Appellants in C.M.A.No.2321 of 2016 had purchased the undivided share of 34% in the agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Acres 20.82 in the Valappadi Village in Salem District under a registered sale deed dated 26-07-2006 (Document No.1517 of 2007) from one Smt. R.Rajamanickam and besides the said property, the appellants had also purchased other adjacent lands under the documents dated 26.07.2006 vide Document Nos.1516 and 1518 of 2007. Under document No.1566 of 2007 dated 07.08.2006, the balance 66% undivided share lands were purchased by R.Mathizhagan and others.
(iv) The Appellants in C.M.A.No.2322 of 2016 had purchased the undivided share of 34% in the agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Acres 4.98 and 8790 square feet the Valappadi Village in Salem District under a registered sale deed dated 26-07-2006 (Document No.1518 of 2007) from one Smt.R.Rajamanickam and besides the said property, the appellants had also purchased other adjacent lands under the documents dated 26.07.2006 vide Document Nos.1516 and 1518 of 2007. Under document No.1566 of 2007 dated 07.08.2006 the balance 66% undivided share lands were purchased by R.Mathizhagan and others.
(v) When the documents were presented for registration, the same were subjected to Section 47 A of Stamp Act proceedings and the Special Deputy Collector Stamps/3rd respondent passed an order on 13-07-2007 fixing the market value of the properties covered under the deed of sale. The Appellants had paid the said amount and took delivery of the document on 17-07-2007.
(vi) By Letter Nos. 43558/U4/U2/07 dated 09-07-2012 [in CMA No.2319 of 2016]; 20721/U4/U2/10 dated 02.09.2012 [in CMA No.2320 of 2016]; 20721/U4/U2/07 dated 02.09.2012 [in CMA Nos.2321 and 2322 of 2016] issued by the 1st Respondent, the Appellants were called upon to attend a hearing on 24.07.2012 before the 1st Respondent (IG of Registration) in the proceedings initiated pursuant to suo moto power under Section 47 A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act. The Appellants appeared and offered their explanation that they were utilizing it only as an agricultural land. Hence,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
