TATA COFFEE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, the issue involved relate to the conduct of the Registering Authority in not releasing the documents after registration on the ground of suspected undervaluation of properties which are the subject matter of the respective documents.

(2.) W.P.No.25721 of 2007:The 4th respondent, Tata Tea Limited, Calcutta, represented by its Senior Vice President and Company Secretary and Vice President of the Company, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act has executed a deed of transfer for a consideration of Rs.40,08,00,000/- on 31.12.2005 in favour of the petitioner, Tata Coffee Ltd. which is an existing Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The said document was presented for registration before the second respondent, the Sub-Registrar, Anamallais, Coimbatore District on 4.1.2006. The second respondent has given the document number as P. No.2/2006 on the basis that the vendor has to produce the original patta book which was not available. The necessary stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act to the extent of Rs.3,20,64,000/- was paid apart from the payment of registration fees of Rs.4,08,000/- The sale was in respect of 9873.86 acres of lands situated in Pannimade Estate in the Registration District of Tiruppur.2(a). The petitioner has written a letter to the second respondent on 2.5.2007 for the release of the document. However, the second respondent has not chosen to release the same. The petitioner understands that the document number has been renumbered as 2026/2007 in May, 2007. Even as on date, the document has not been returned and therefore, the Writ Petition has been filed for direction against the second and third respondents, viz., the Sub-Registrar and District Revenue Officer (Stamps) to hand over or release the deed dated 31.12.2005 bearing registration No.2026/07.

(3.) MR. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.33556 to 33582 of 2007 would submit that as far as the batch of cases, which he represents, are concerned, the documents were presented in 1999 and in fact, they were registered in 1999 and the Sub-Registrar has not made any reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and the petitioners have not received any notice or information about such enquiry by the Collector which is mandatory under Section 47-A(2) of the Act and in spite of repeated representations, there is no reply and therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it is, by the lethargic attitude of the authorities for more than eight years, much prejudice has been caused to the petitioners since their valuable right over the properties purchased by them has been actually interfered with by the conduct of the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act in not releasing the documents.5(a). He would submit that in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the authorities under the Act, it is not open to the authorities to conduct any enquiry afresh after the lapse of eight years or any order passed by the authorities behind the back of the petitioners cannot be deemed to be a valid order and the same is against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, the question of directing the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority does not arise. He would submit that there is no reason for the respondents to retain the documents for more than eight years and his contention is that by the conduct of the respondents, any right which has accrued as per Section 47-A of the Act for the purpose of making fresh valuation on the part of the authorities gets lapsed. He would rely upon the provisions of Section 47-A which make it mandatory on the part of the Collector to conduct enquiry after giving necessary opportunity to the petitioners by issuing Form No.1 and inasmuch as the petitioners have not received any Form and no enquiry was conducted, it is a classic case of total illegality on the part of the respondents.5(b). He would relay upon the judgment in Ramaswamy, Nallamannickenpatti v. The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome and others, 2003 (4) LW 319, in which while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has explained the powers of the Registering Authority and directed the authority to return the document immediately, holding that the act of retaining the document is highhanded conduct on the part of the respondents, who have no right to retain the document when the same has been registered in accordance with the Rules. He would also submit that the petitioners have in fact given correct valuation of the properties and only after satisfying about the valuation, the registration was effected by the Sub-Registrar.