2024:MHC:2243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Writ Appeal Nos.697 to 710 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 W.A. No.697 of 2013 and M.P. No.1 of 2013

1. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Singaravelan Maligai, Chennai-600 001.

2. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052. ... Appellants Vs.

Kanchana S/o. Krishnachand Chordia ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 21.04.2008 made in W.P. No.33659 of 2007.

For Appellants : Mr. B. Vijay, [in all W.A's] Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : No appearance.

[in all W.A's]

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

A batch of intra-court writ appeals have been instituted challenging the common order dated 21.04.2008, issuing directions to release the documents registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.

2. It is not in dispute that the documents registered by the Registering Authority had been referred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, to determine the market value and the stamp duty payable on such documents executed and registered under the Registration Act.

3. Since the registered documents were not released, during pendency of the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the parties to the documents approached the High Court by instituting writ proceedings for releasing the documents. The Writ Court formed an opinion that mere reference and pendency of adjudication under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is not a bar for release of documents by creating a charge on the documents. In this context, the writ court relied on the case of M.Ponnusamy and 42 others Vs. The District Collector, Erode & Others). Yet another case relied on by the writ court is that G.Karmegam and others Vs. The Joint Sub-Registrar, Madurai (2007 (5) CTC 737). Relying on the above judgments, the writ court allowed the batch of writ petitions and issued directions to release the documents by creating charge with consequential directions. Aggrieved by said directions, the State preferred the present writ appeals.

4. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the issues raised in the writ petitions and the present writ appeals are no more res integra. The legal position was clarified by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and another Vs. M.Alfred and others reported in 2017 (2) CWC 896. The principles laid down in M.Alfred's case has been reiterated in the case of The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and another Vs. K.Rajeswari in W.A.No.1488 of 2017 dated 18.12.2017.

5. In the case of M.Alfred's, the Hon'ble Division Bench considered the earlier judgments relied on by the writ court in the order impugned in the present writ appeals. The provisions, role of the Registering Authority, scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and release of documents during the pendency of 47-A proceedings were elaborately considered. The Division Bench in paragraph nos.16, 24 and 28 held as follows:

"16. Section 47-A(4) of the Indian Stamp Act speaks about the charge. Such a charge is on the property mentioned in the instrument. The charge is not on the instrument, but on the property. Creating charge is one thing and release of document is another thing. However, the question for consideration is as to whether such a charge by itself give a right to get the document released, notwithstanding payment of duty determined. Keeping in mind the object of the enactment, necessarily we have to hold that no such right is available.

17 to 23……………….

24. Whether it is a question of impounding, deficit stamp duty or undervaluation, the result appears to be the same. What is determined by the Collector has to be paid. Thi