M C ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the petitioners in writ Petition No. 13030 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single judge. The respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.

(2.) THE challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure-F notices dated 8. 10. 2002 and 13. 12. 2002 issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner under Section 45-A of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957. The main contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction as the sale deed in question was registered on 7. 7. 1997 and the earliest notice was issued on 8. 10. 2002. It is contended that the petitioners had not received any earlier notice from the 2nd respondent. It is contended that proceedings under Section 45-A (3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 can be initiated within two years from the date of registration of the document and that in the case the proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of registration of the document and hence the impugned notices and the proceedings are without jurisdiction. The learned single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners/ appellants was registered on 7. 7. 1997. But the 2nd respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioners that the proceedings under Section 45-A (3)were initiated after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of registration of the sale deed. In the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that as many as 12 notices were issued to the petitioners from 22. 1. 1999 to 18. 3. 2003 requiring them to appear and file objections. It is also stated that notices issued on 22. 1. 1999 and 26. 8. 2002 were returned undelivered. It is further stated that the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent on 17. 12. 2002 to send all letters to M/s. M. C. Associates. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder controverting the above averments contained in the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent. In the appeal memorandum also the appellants have simply repeated the averment that they received a notice for the first time on 8. 10. 2002. When this case came up for hearing on 23. 10. 2007, the appellants were directed to produce a copy of the objections filed by them in reply to the impugned notices. However today learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had not filed any objections to the impugned notices and that they had straightaway filed the writ petition.