K N THANGAVEL Vs. REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding initiated by the District Registrar / the 1st respondent herein in Proceedings Ku.Na. No: 63/B1/99 dated 28.02.2005 and a consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent on 05.04.2008 are called in question, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to release document No: 619/98 dated 25.05.1998.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, by registered sale deeds dated 25.01.1993 and 07.05.1993, the petitioner and one V.K. Mani purchased the lands in question jointly and, thereafter, by a registered partition deed dated 25.05.1998, they have partitioned the said property, which they claim to be agricultural lands. While so, the 2nd respondent in its letter dated 10.04.2000 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- towards deficit stamp duty for Document No: 619 of 1998 for which partition has been effected between the petitioner and the said V.K. Mani. It is the petitioner's case that the said V.K. Mani has assured him that he would approach the respondents 1 and 2 and get the document cleared as the agricultural lands have been treated as commercial lands and in any case, there cannot be a stamp duty of a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- for the partition which is impermissible in law. The 2nd respondent has sent another letter on 21.03.2003 directing the petitioner and V.K. Mani to produce the document for spot inspection. Even though the petitioner was ready with the document, the 2nd respondent didn't come for inspection. But to the shock and surprise, the 1st respondent issued a certificate under Section 33 A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and directed the recovery of the above said amount under Section 48 of the Act without following the procedure contemplated under Section 33 A (1) of the Act. ACCORDING to him, no certificate under Section 33 A (1) o the Act shall be granted without due enquiry and an opportunity of hearing and though the letters dated 23.01.2000 and 20.02.2000 have been served on the petitioner, they are not notices under Section 33 A (1) of the Act and the enquiry under the said Section cannot be invoked after three years from the date of registration of the instrument. Even after the order dated 20.08.2005, the said V.K. Mani has informed the petitioner that he will pursue the matter but, he has not chosen to do so. But the 3rd respondent has issued notice under the Revenue Recovery Act on 05.04.2008, thereby informing the petitioner that in the absence of the payment of the amount being deficit stamp duty, the revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated and, therefore, the said proceeding challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the proceedings contemplated by the respondents without following the procedure is liable to be set aside as the said proceedings are without issuance of notice and without an opportunity and beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act.

(3.) MR.V. Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his submission has strenuously contended that the partition deed between the petitioner and V.K. Mani was presented before the respondent by V.K.Mani and, therefore, what are all notices alleged to have been issued were served and issued in the name of V.K. Mani and not to the petitioner except the impugned proceedings dated 28.02.2005 which according to him is vitiated by Section 33 A (1) wherein a time limit has been provided that no such enquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents for a document which was presented on 25.05.1998 cannot be proceeded with by the competent authority after the expiry of three years. He would further contend that the competent authority to initiate the proceeding is the District Registrar of the concerned Registration District and no other authority is empowered to initiate proceedings and, therefore, any notice which was issued by the Sub Registrar on 10.04.2000 cannot be taken as a notice issued under Section 33 A (1) of the Act. MR. V. Bharathidasan learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of this Court reported in 1995 (1) MLJ 40 ( R.M. Ibrahim vs. District Registrar) wherein the Court held that,