ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.V. Bhatt, J.
Peddi Koteswari —Petitioner
versus
District Registrar of Assurances
and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3295 of 2005
Decided on 21.11.2014

Headnote:Indian Stamp Act, 1899—Sections 47A, 48—Registration Act—Section 34 and 35—Determination of value of immovable property and correct stamp duty payable thereon—Return of documents when it remaine3d unregistered due to non-payment of deficit stamp duty—Petitioner purchased a property from respondent No.3 and sale deed was presented for registration before 2nd respondent to 1st respondent finding that sale consideration shown at Rs.1,50,000 in consequent stamp duty was nor properv1st Respondent dete4rmined value of property at Rs.7,02,500 and stamp duty payable was determined at Rs.66,300—Petitioner when approached 2nd Respondent to pay deficient stamp duty, he found that 2nd respondent had returned document without registration to 3rd respondent whom deficit stamp duty was collected—Writ—2nd respondent had no authority to return a duly executed document to one of the parties without putting the other on notice of such decision—Return of document to 3rd respondent admittedly the document.

       Held: Admittedly the document was kept pending registration for decision under Section 47A of the Stamp Act. Once the issue is limited to the extent of deficit stamp duty payable by the parties, the 2nd respondent has to act according to Section 47A of the Stamp Act read with Rule 7 (4) of the Rules. At any rate to prevent loss of revenue, the 2nd respondent has no authority either under the Registration Act or the Stamp Act to return \a duly executed document to one of the parties without putting the other on notice of such decision. The counter affidavit of 2nd respondent is silent about the date of issue of notice either to the petitioner or 3rd respondent for payment of deficit stamp duty. If the 2nd respondent acts on oral request of 3rd respondent and in his over enthusiasm returns the document to 3rd respondent, this Court is compelled to hold that the action of 2nd respondent is illegal, unauthorised and unjust.

       Learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent by placing reliance upon S.O.No.230(c) contends that the 2nd respondent in view of the expression used in Clause (c) is entitled to return unregistered document to the party. In the opinion of this Court, the reliance upon clause (c) of Standing Order 230 is untenable, Standing Order 230 deals with return of documents unregistered. The first contingency is return of unregistered documents where the executants, their representatives etc. failed to appear and there is no request from any person entitled to present the document to proceed with the registration of the document. Further, while exercising discretion under S.O. 230 the 2nd respondent is required to send notices by registered post with acknowledgement due to all other parties who are entitled to present it for registration fixing reasonable date and afford opportunity to state their case. In the event of one of the parties pressing for registration, the Sub Registrar shall not comply with the request of return of the document and on the other hand shall proceed to complete the process of registration. If no objection is received, the 2nd respondent is authorised to return the document. At any rate, Clause (a) of S. O. 230 has no application to the case on hand. On the other hand, reference to fairness in action can be understood when clause (a) of S.O. 230 mandates issuance of notice to all the parties. Even in the case of insufficiently stamped document, clause (c) clearly says deficit duty will have to be recovered and adjudication process completed. The return of unregistered document can be at the request of the parties. By reference to clause (c), it cannot be contended that the 2nd respondent is given so much discretion and authority to undo duly performed act of execution, presentation etc at the instance or request of one party without notice to the affected persons and return original document to one of the parties to the detriment of other. Such conduct of 2nd respondent is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. At the time of registration of deed on 6.6.1997, the return of duly registered document was authorised in favour petitioner. Therefore, at any rate, the return could not be to 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent. In the opinion of this Court, the return of document to 3rd respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. The 3rd respondent also acted contrary to the term of contract and condition agreed at the time of execution and registration of sale deed dated 6.6.1997, namely to return the document to petitioner. (Paras 14 & 15)

       Result: Petition allowed.