LAWS(KAR)-1994-7-14

M K KURUVILLA Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR BANGALORE

Decided On July 28, 1994
M.K.KURUVILLA Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT REGISTRAR, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is before us on a reference made by Shivashankar Bhat, J., under S. 9 of the High Court Act. The question referred for consideration is whether it is open for this Court to direct return of a document to the party pending adjudication of the proceedings under S. 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act ('the Act') before statutory authority.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows : The petitioner purchased house property bearing No. 843, 15th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34 under a sale deed dt. 6-8-1992 registered as document No. 3248/ 1992-93 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. After registering the document the Sub-Registrar having entertained reason to believe that the property has been under-valued for the purpose of Stamp Duty made reference to the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Bangalore District for adjudication of the correct market value thereof and forwarded the original document to him along with his reference order. The petitioner's request for return of the document was rejected on the ground that it can be secured from the adjudicating authority after finalisation of the proceedings.

(3.) In pursuance of the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, the first respondent has initiated proceedings under S. 45A of the Act by issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause against enhancement of the value of the property for the purpose of levying additional Stamp Duty. Even though one year has elapsed since the date of registration, the first respondent has not passed any order. Hence an application dt. 20-8-1993 was made for return of the documents on the ground that it is required for the purpose of getting the khata transferred in his name and for other purposes. Along with his application he has produced a certified copy of the sale deed and further undertook to produce the original deed before him whenever it is required. However the respondent refused either to return the document of to issue an endorsement in this behalf. Hence the petitioner sought for a mandamus directing return of the registered sale deed.