M N SUBRAMANIAM Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioners had purchased the agricultural lands comprised in S.F.No.384/3 at Padappai Village ad-measuring to an extent of 25 cents each and 94 cents respectively aggregated in 1.44 acres under three separate sale deeds dated 13.03.2002 and the sale deeds were presented for registration before the third respondent and registered as Document Nos.2307, 2308 and 2309 of 2002 respectively on 24.10.2002. However, despite the registration of the sale deeds, those documents were not returned and on enquiry, came to know that the third respondent has formed an opinion that the sale transactions were undervalued and therefore, referred the matter to the second respondent for determination under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and as per the determination, the petitioners were called upon to pay differential stamp duty at the rate of Rs.34,880/- per cent and it was also confirmed by the second respondent vide order dated 27.03.2006. The petitioners, aggrieved by the final orders passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2006, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 09.04.2009 and it was returned on 26.06.2009. The petitioners have re-presented the same on 05.01.2016 stating among other things that the appeal memorandum was preferred and handled by a counsel and the returned papers have not been taken by him, which resulted in delay. However, the first respondent has rejected the appeal memorandum itself stating that the appeal came to be preferred after nine years from the date of order. Challenging the legality of the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 47-A (5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 r/w Rule 9 of the TamilNadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and would submit that technically, it is a case of re-presentation only for the reason that the appeal was preferred on time and however, misconstruing the same, the first respondent has erroneously returned the appeal papers stating that the appeal itself came to be presented belatedly and prays for interference.