Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
CRAFT FERTILITY CENTRE PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15706 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
For the Respondents: SRI. K. M. FAISAL, GP
The lack of notice prior to proceedings under the Kerala Stamp Rules was significant, leading to the court's decision to set aside recovery actions pending proper legal compliance.
Headnote:In this writ petition, the petitioner contested the issuance of a letter by the District Registrar regarding under-valuation of property for stamp duty, despite remitting higher amounts as per the Stamp Act. The court found procedural shortcomings in the actions leading to the issuance of the notice. The court set aside the clause directing recovery proceedings against the petitioner while allowing the respondents to initiate appropriate actions under the law. The writ petition is disposed of in a manner consistent with this finding.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on property acquisition and valuation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to notice issued for under-valuation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's final ruling on procedural compliance. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 25th day of November, 2025)
Petitioner obtained 69.87 Ares of property in Survey No.238/2 in block No.13 of Maradu village by virtue of sale deed No.2510/2014 of Maradu sub registry. At the time of purchase of the property covered by Ext.P1 and P2, the fair value of the property was Rs.2,41,920/- per Are. But, the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.12,57,800/- each being the stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act by calculating a higher fair value at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per Are. The petitioner received a letter dated 16.02.2024, issued from the Kanayannoor Taluk Legal Service Committee, that the registration of Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are done with under valuation and so, before taking legal steps against the petitioner, the petitioner is required to appear before the Kanayannoor Taluk Legal Service Committee on 26.02.2024 for negotiation. 2. In Exhibit P4, the petitioner has stated that actual fair value of the property was Rs.2,41,320/- per Are and the petitioner paid the stamp duty at an increased fair value of Rs.3,00,000/- per Are and therefore, the registration of Exhibit P1 and P2 were not done by under valuing the property. Hence, requested to drop further proceedings against the petitioner. After receipt of Exhibit P4 letter, the Kanayannoor Taluk Legal Service Committee has informed the petitioner that further decision will be taken later and then informed to the petitioner. But thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any information from the Kanayannoor Taluk Legal Service Committee.
3. On 04.02.2025, the petitioner received Ext.P5 letter dated 18.01.2025, issued by the 1st respondent, asking the petitioner to appear before the settlement commission to get the benefit of reduced fees in respect of the registration of Ext.P1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 letter in this writ petition.
4. According to the petitioner, no notice was served to him before Ext.P5 was issued. Hence, the proceedings contemplated under the Kerala Stamp Rules , 1968 is not fully complied with.
The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the final order is not available in the office and therefore, he is not in a position to produce the same. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the last clause in Ext.P5 that directs recovery proceedings against the petitioner unless payment is remitted according to the compounding scheme. The respondents are also given liberty to initiate the proceedings of under-valuation in respect of the documents on 2510 of 2014 and 2511 of 2014, in accordance with the law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
