C P INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES Vs. SUB REGISTRAR EDAPPALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the court was delivered by Balakrishna Eradi, C. J. - This appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner in O.P. No. 591 of 1976, which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm called C.P. Industrial Enterprises. The petitioner had acquired a 1/8th share in respect of the properties and assets owned by another firm by name Kerala Paper Packagings as per a registered sale deed executed in June, 1974. Subsequently, the 8 partners of M/s Kerala Paper Packagings executed in the petitioner's favour a document styled as a release deed on 25th June 1974. Ext. P-1 is a true copy of the said document. The petitioner presented that document for registration before the Sub Registrar, Edappally Sub Registry Office on 25th June 1974 itself. It would appear that the Sub Registrar felt some doubt about the stamp duty leviable in respect of that document and sought clarification regarding the said matter from the District Registrar, who in turn seems to have referred the said question to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue is said to have considered the matter under S.54(3) of the Kerala Stamp Act and rendered a decision as per the proceedings evidenced by Ext. P-5, dated 26th September 1975 holding that the document in question is a conveyance falling under Art.22 of the Kerala Stamp Act and that duty has to be levied and collected from the petitioner on the said basis. Pursuant to the said decision rendered by the Board of Revenue, the Sub Registrar, Edappally (1st respondent) issued to the petitioner a memo Ext. P-2 calling upon him to remit the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 37,157.50 together with a penalty of Rs. 250 within one week from the date of receipt thereof. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation before the District Registrar on 4th November 1975 objecting to the demand for deficit stamp duty made against him by the 1st respondent as per Ext. P-2. In reply to the said representation the District Registrar informed the petitioner that the question relating to the stamp duty payable on the document had been referred by his office to the Board of Revenue under S.54(2) of the Stamp Act and that the Board had decided that the document was a conveyance chargeable to duty under Art.22 of the said Act. A true extract of the decision of the Board of Revenue was also communicated to the petitioner along with Ext. P-3. Feeling aggrieved by the action so taken against him by the respondents, the petitioner came up to this Court with the writ petition seeking to quash Exts. P-3 and P-5. One of the pleas specifically raised by the petitioner in the writ petition was that the Board of Revenue had grossly violated the principles of natural justice in conducting the adjudication under S.54 of the Act wholly behind the back of the petitioner without even issuing a notice to him and this illegality of procedure completely vitiates and renders void the order Ext. P-5 issued by the District Registrar to him. Alternatively it was contended on the merits that the view taken by the Board of Revenue that the document in question evidences a conveyance chargeable to duty under Art.22 of the Act is legally incorrect and untenable and the correct provision under which the duty payable on the document has to be reckoned is Art.48. since the instrument is a deed of release.

(2.) In the judgment of the learned single Judge the first plea relating to violation of the principles of natural justice has, unfortunately, not been dealt with. Only the second point urged by the petitioner relating to the merits of the decision taken by the Board of Revenue has been gone into by the learned single Judge and on the said point the learned single Judge has negatived the contention put forward by the petitioner that the document is chargeable to duty only under Art.48 and not under Art.22.

(3.) It is now well settled that in discharging the power vested in it by S.54(3) of the Stamp Act, the Board of Revenue has to act judicially and is therefore mandatorily obliged to observe the principles of natural justice. - See Board of Revenue, UP. Allahabad v. Sardarni Vidyawati and another ( AIR 1962 SC 1217 ). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is not denied that the decision evidenced by Ext. P-5 was taken by the Board of Revenue without affording to the petitioner any opportunity of being heard. No notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity to make his representations was extended to him. Such being the factual situation, we are constrained to hold that the proceedings issued by the Board of Revenue as per Ext. P-5 are illegal and void on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The order Ext. P-5 as well as the consequential memos issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent evidenced by Exts. P-2 and P-4 will also stand quashed.