DISTRICT REGISTRAR Vs. MUMTAZ BEEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram challenges Ext.P2 order of the Lok Ayukta on a complaint Ext.P1 submitted by the 1 st respondent on the ground that the Lok Ayukta does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as well as to issue positive orders.

(2.) Ext.P1 complaint was submitted by the 1 st respondent stating that the Sub Registrar required the complainant to remit a sum of Rs.25,752/- as additional stamp duty towards registration of a document. The complaint Ext.P1 states that the complainant purchased an extent of 3.6 acres of property for a consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- and accordingly the document was presented for registration after remitting stamp duty of Rs.29,500/- on 26.5.2003. She received a notice dated 25.08.2003 from the Sub Registrar seeking explanation for under valuation within a period of 7 days. Saying that she had submitted the correct stamp duty, she submitted an explanation. But the Sub Registrar directed her to remit additional stamp duty of Rs.25,752, within a period of 7 days. The complainantthe 1 st respondent filed the complaint saying that the action of the petitioner(department) was without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice,.

(3.) In Ext.P2 report dated 09.12.2003, the Lok Ayukta found that in the light of the judgments in Himalaya House Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, 1972 1 SCC 726, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram v. Ittiavirah John & anr., 1975 KerLT 486 and District Registrar v. Lake Paradise, 2001 3 KerLT 521 the stamp duty on a conveyance has to be fixed with reference to the consideration mentioned in the document and not with reference to the market value of the property. The Lok Ayukta found that the action of the District Registrar is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court and hence it amounts to an action totally unreasonable, unjustified and oppressive which can be considered as an act of maladministration. Further it was held that the demand and recovery by invoking coercive steps amount to maladministration and that can only be considered as grievance liable to be remedied by issuing appropriate recommendations. Even though the petitioners had contended that there is an alternate separate remedy available for the 1 st respondent by filing an appeal, the Lok Ayukta found that the availability of alternative remedy would not preclude the complainant from approaching the forum, in the light of Section 24(2) of the Act.