PREETHA JAYARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner purchased 2.42 acres of vacant land in Sy.No.571/12 of Ernakulam Village from one Jaya Krishnan, who executed a deed of sale dated 30-1-1990 in her favour for Rs.48,000/-. When the document was presented for registration to the Sub Registrar, he took the view that the consideration shown was not the minimum as per the value fixed by the Collector under S.28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (the Act). The Sub Registrar therefore demanded payment of stamp duty on the basis of the minimum value fixed by the Collector. The order of the Sub Registrar Ext. P1 dated 15-12-1990 also stated that an appeal will lis against this order to the District Collector under S.45-A(4) of the Act read with R.3 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Minimum Value of Land for Registration of Instruments by Registering Officer) Appeal Rules, 1990. To avoid delay, petitioner paid the balance stamp duty, got the document registered and then filed the appeal, Ext. P2 before the Collector. The appeal is dated 5-1-1991, but the Government Pleader says it was received by the District Collector on 12-4-1991. In the meanwhile, and on 11-1-1991, Ordinance No. l of 1991 had been promulgated repealing inter alia S.45A which provided for an appeal to the District Collector in such cases. The District Collector, namely the second respondent, therefore informed the petitioner by his communication Ext. P3 that he was not in a position to entertain the appeal. Petitioner thereafter issued two notices Exts. P4 and P5 calling upon the District Collector to entertain the appeal or to refund the additional stamp duty paid, alleging that it was not payable in view of the repeal of S.28A itself by Ordinance No.1 of 1991 (subsequently replaced by Act 16 of 1991).

(2.) 'Petitioner has filed this original petition challenging the proceedings Ext. P3 refusing to entertain her appeal and for consequential direction to the second respondent District Collector to deal with the appeal on merits.

(3.) Government Pleader appeared for the respondents on receipt of a copy of the original petition and argued the matter, after obtaining instructions. His contention is that the right of appeal was a creature of S.45A of the Act and when that was repealed by Ordinance No. l of 1991 on 11-1-1991, the petitioner lost her right of appeal and therefore the Collector was justified in refusing to entertain the appeal.