Interpretation of statutory provisions and government clarifications to determine the classification of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with respect to the final orders passed by the Inspector General of Registration Cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority i.e., second respondent, in his proceedings Nos.39504/P1/2011-1 and 39504/P1/2011-2 respectively, dated 18.12.2015 in respect of the pending Documents P61/2002 and P63/2002 respectively and quash the impugned orders and to issue direction to the second respondent to classify the Release Deeds under Article 55(A) of Stamp Act.)

Common Order:

The petitioner has filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records with respect to the final orders passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings Nos.39504/P1/2011-1 and 39504/P1/2011-2 respectively, dated 18.12.2015 in respect of the pending Documents P61/2002 and P63/2002 respectively and to quash the impugned orders and to issue direction to the second respondent to classify the Release Deeds under Article 55(A) of Stamp Act.

2. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by way of common order.

3. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10873 of 2016 is that the petitioner's father purchased an extent of 3600 sq.ft in New Door No.47, Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Perambur, Chennai and settled the aforesaid property in favour of his four sons including the petitioner by executing two settlement deeds. Thereafter by way of family arrangement, 2466 sq.ft out of 3600 sq.ft. of the subject property was allotted to the petitioner and the three brothers of the petitioner released the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner presented the release deed before the first respondent for registration, however, the same was kept as pending document on the ground that stamp duty has to be paid under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent, however, the first respondent passed an order demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, however, the second respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.10874 of 2016 is that the petitioner's father purchased an extent of 728 sq.ft in Door No.164, Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, Perambur, Chennai and settled the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner and his another son Sivanesan by way of settlement deed. Thereafter by way of family arrangement, the petitioner's brother Sivanesan released the property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner presented the release deed before the first respondent for registration, however, the same was kept as pending document on the ground that stamp duty has to be paid under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, whereas, the petitioner has paid the stamp duty under Article 55 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made representation to the first respondent, however, the first respondent passed an order demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, the petitioner filed revision before the second respondent, however, the second respondent passed the impugned order confirming the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that initially under Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act, the word family did not define brothers as joint family members, however, by an amendment passed by the Tamil Nadu Government by Act 31 of 2004, which came into effect on 16.12.2004, brothers are included as family members. Hence, the impugned orders are