IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 4583 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.PREMLAL ,KRISHNA PRIYA B-18, TC 8/1122, MYTHRI NAGAR, VALIAYAVILLA, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHPURAM. 4. THE TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) A.G.'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4583/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF PAGE 334 OF THE FAIR VALUE REGISTER IN RESPECT OF RE SURVEY NO.204/05 OF BLOCK NO.6 OF MALAYANKEEZHU VILLAGE. P2 : COPY OF REPORT OF THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL FOR THE YEAR 2003- 2004. P3 : COPY OF MEMO NO.86/2006 DATED 08/08/2006 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONER. P4 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/08/2006 ALONG WITH THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 31/10/2007 OF R3 TO R5. P6 : COPY OF MEMO DATED 26/11/2007 ISSUED BY R5. P7 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/05/2007 OF R3 ALONG WITH THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE. P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/03/2002 OF R1. P9 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 30/07/1998 OF R5 TO R2. P10 : COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2914/04 OF SRO, MALAYINKIL DATED 22/07/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4583 of 2009 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was Junior Superintendent in the Sub Registrar Office, Malayinkeezhu. He retired from service on 31/10/2004. Prior to his retirement, on 13/07/2004 the petitioner was in-charge of the Sub Registrar of SRO, Malayankeezhu. On that day, document No.2787/2004, a sale deed in respect of 40 cents of land with a sale consideration of Rs.2 lakhs, was registered in the Sub Registrar's Office. 2. It appears that the very same property was again sold on 22/07/2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs. Stating that it is a case of undervaluation and that there was failure on the part of the petitioner in dealing with the documents as per Section 45(B) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, Ext.P2 report was submitted by the Accountant General. Based on the report, Ext.P7 liability certificate was issued fixing a liability of Rs.60,450/- on the petitioner, on account of deficiency of stamp and registration fee. 3. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection and the District Registrar submitted Ext.P5 report. These were rejected by Ext.P6. Thereafter, aggrieved by the liability of Rs.60,450/- fixed against WP(C) No.4583/2009 -2- the petitioner, he has approached this Court. 4. Although from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it would appear that according to them, this is a case of under valuation, fact remains that the District Registrar had submitted Ext.P5 report in response to the letter issued by the Accountant General and Ext.P6 does not show that the Accountant General has considered any of the contentions raised by the District Registrar in Ext.P5 report. Therefore, Ext.P6 has to be held as one issued without adverting to the contentions raised and on proper application of mind. 5. For that reason, I quash Ext.P6. The 5th respondent is directed to reconsider the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 report and pass orders in the matter duly adverting to Ext.P5 report submitted by the District Registrar. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that depending upon the order to be passed by the 5th respondent as above, if necessary, the 3rd respondent will issue a revised LC/NLC as the case may be, to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg