IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-9-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.2467 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Mani. ... Appellant/Appellant vs. 1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Officer- cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), DRO Office, Coimbatore. ... Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act against the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Inspector General of Registration in Proceedings Mu.Pa.No.37620/NO2/07, rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the second respondent in Proceedings Mu.Pa.No.590/T/2004 For appellant : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For respondents : Mr.R.Muthiah, Government Advocate (C.S.) ----- JUDGMENT The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Inspector General of Registration in Proceedings Mu.Pa.No.37620/NO2/07, rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the second respondent in Proceedings Mu.Pa.No.590/T/2004. 2. The brief facts that are necessary to the disposal of the present appeal are as follows:- The sale deed in the present case executed in favour of the appellant is dated 15.7.2002. An order under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 20.10.2005 was passed by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps). It was, however, not communicated to the appellant. Since the order dated 20.10.2005 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was not communicated to the present appellant and after several attempts, an application was filed on 2.7.2007. It is stated that on the same day the said order was issued to the appellant. Based on the said order dated 20.10.2005 received on 2.7.2007, an appeal has been filed on 13.7.2007 to the first respondent appellate authority. The acknowledgment for the appeal was given on 30.7.2007 and after hearing the party, the first respondent rejected the appeal on 30.11.2007 only on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. Stating that the first respondent erroneously rejected the appeal on the ground of delay, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. As stated earlier, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that the reference order dated 20.10.2005 passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was not communicated and only after diligent pursuit by the appellant and on filing an application, the copy was served and the appeal was filed. If the date of receipt of the order which is 2.7.2007 is taken as relevant date, the appeal is in time and there is no delay. This factual position is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate (C.S.) appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Advocate (C.S.) on instruction stated that as in the earlier batch of case, the impugned order of the first respondent can be set aside and remitted back for hearing of the appeal on merits. 4. In batch of cases disposed off on 11.7.2007 in C.M.A.Nos.776, 777, 994, 1304, 1312, 1345, 1701, 816, 1817 of 2008 reported in (2008)7 MLJ 134 (J.Deavaki and others – v. - Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling Officer and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and others), similar issue came up for consideration and this court passed the order which reads as follows:- "11. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment reported in 2005(1) CTC 733 (Indira Devi – v. - Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-28 and 28 others) wherein in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it has been held as follows: "5. There is no dispute that as per Rule 9(5)(a) of the said Rules, an appeal under section (10) of Section 47A shall be preferred within two months from the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ final order passed under Sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of section 47-A. Though the relevant rule says that an appeal has to be preferred within two months from the date of final order passed, in the absence of specific exclusion regarding application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drawing our attention to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court (Principal Seat) dated 31.3.2004 made in C.M.A.(NPD) Nos.896 and 897 of 2004 would submit that the appeal filed by the appellant before the first respondent is well within time. In the said decision, the Division Bench had occasion to consider the similar claim under the very same provision i.e., Rule 9(5)(a) of the Rules referred to above. After referring to a Judgment of the Supreme Court dealt within a similar circumstance, the Division Bench has concluded thus: "We therefore, hold that the date of order under section 47- A for the purpose of deciding the limitation for filing appeals should be construed to mean the date of the service of the order. Hence, the date of order under Rule 9 of the said rules shall be construed to mean the date of service of the order for the purpose of determining the time limit to prefer the appeals." 6. Inasmuch as there is a specific provision enabling the aggrieved person to file an appeal to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein viz., the Inspector General of Registration, as rightly observed by the Division Bench, unless the copy of the order is furnished/served on the aggrieved person, it would not be possible for him to file the appeal. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench." On this premises all the appeals are canvassed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Heard Thiru R.Muthian, learned Government Advocate (C.S.) for the respondents, who on verification and instructions from the officials of the department who is present in court stated that the communication were sent to the parties concerned by ordinary post. They are not able to place on record the acknowledgment to show that it has been duly served on the parties. The appellants on their turn have sought for, made representation and in some cases applied for a copy of the order and the appeals are filed thereafter. The appeals, it is contended by them are in time and there is no delay. If the date of receipt of the order as contended by the appellants is taken as date of service, respondents do no dispute the contention. 13. Since the order of the Collector (Stamps) has not been communicated as provided under Rule 15, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals were not filed in time. The legal position stands clarified by the Division Bench decision's cited supra. 14. The respondents are also not disputing the dates on which the orders were received by the appellants as stated by the individuals/appellants in all these appeals. If the date of receipt as stated by the appellants is reckoned as the date of communication, the appellants claim that they have filed their appeals within the time has to be accepted and right so they are entitled to be heard on merits. The counsel for respondent stated that the impugned orders can be set aside and remitted back to the authority for consideration on merits. 15. In such view of the matter, the impugned order in all the cases passed by the first respondent appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of Registration are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the first respondent for consideration of the appeals on merits. The appeals as far as possible shall be heard and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." 5. In this case, the relevant date for purpose of filing the appeal will be the date of receipt of the order, viz., 2.7.2007 and not 20.10.2005 as the said order was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communicated immediately thereafter. It was only at the behest of the appellant, the order has been served on the appellant. The respondents are not able to show any service on the appellant before 2.7.2007. Therefore, the reasoning of this court in the earlier decision referred to above will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The learned Government Advocate (C.S.) does not dispute this fact. If the date of receipt as stated by the appellant is reckoned as the date of communication, the appellant's claim, that he has filed the appeal within the time has to be accepted. The rejection of appeal is bad and the appellant is entitled to be heard on merits, as there is no delay and the question of limitation does not arise. 6. In view of the earlier order passed in the batch of appeals reported in (2008)7 MLJ 134(cited supra), which squarely applies to the facts of the present case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, Inspector General of Registration to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal as far as possible shall be heard and disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed as above by way of remand. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Ts Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Officer- cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-600 028. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps), DRO Office, Coimbatore. + 1 cc to Mr. T. R. Rajaraman, Advocate SR No. 56112 SSV(CO) SR/24.10.2008 Judgment in C.M.A.No.2467 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/