MANJULA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 3 to 11 claim to be the agreement holders in respect of an agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. The said agreement to sell is stoutly denied by the petitioner on the ground that the signature found on the agreement is not that of hers. Since the petitioner did not come forward to execute the necessary sale deed pursuant to the agreement to sell, they have filed a suit in O. S. No. 1490/08 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District. In the meantime, one of the agreement holders i.e., respondent No. 3 makes an application to the second respondent for adjudication of stamps under Section 31 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The said application was considered and the second respondent found that in the given set of circumstances and having regard to Art. 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the respondents are liable to make good the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 16,20,000/-, inasmuch as, according to the respondents there was a recital in the agreement that pursuant to the agreement they were put in possession. The second respondent has adjudicated and has collected the required stamp duty, copy of the endorsement or the certificate is to be found at Annexure-A and the application made by the third respondent is at Annexure-B. Petitioner questions the endorsement on the agreement to sell, virtually ratifying the agreement to sell by accepting the deficit stamp duty.

(2.) Mr. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that a reading of Section 31 would clearly indicate that there must be an adjudication which would necessarily take into its fold an enquiry since respondent No. 2 is a quasi judicial authority. He further submits that the affidavit filed by the second respondent and also the records made available discloses that there is no adjudication of the proceedings at all, inasmuch as, sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act contemplates that there must be an evidence and a proceeding while adjudicating the stamp duty leviable. He further submits that having regard to Section 32 of the Act, agreement ought to have been presented for adjudication within 30 days from the date of execution.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 11 submits that adjudication, as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act is not in the nature of a judicial proceedings but is adjudication of the stamp duty payable. He further submits that an application was made by respondent No. 3 and on such application, the second respondent has determined the stamp duty payable. He further submits that the time limit prescribed under Section 32 of the Act may not be available to the petitioner, inasmuch as, they would relate to a suo motu proceedings and he would press into service the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Government of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmed Khan reported in AIR 1961 SC 787.