IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.516 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 G.Manimegalai .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of Collector Coimbatore. 3.The Sub Registrar Office of Sub Registrar Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.R.Nandhakumar For respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam,AGP ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Sub Registrar, Udumalpet, the third respondent herein, dated 5.10.2010 under section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and also for a direction against the respondents 2 and 3 to return the original sale deed dated 4.2.2008 registered as document No.590/08 on the file of the third respondent. 2. The petitioner purchased a residential plot No.78 in the approved layout comprised in SF No.55, TS.No.3 Part, Ward-B, Block-6, Velan Nagar, Udumalpet measuring 8.24 cents under a sale deed dated 4.2.2008 through the power agent of her vendor on payment of valuable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration. The document was presented before the third respondent for registration and on payment of necessary charges and stamp duty and compliance of the formalities required under the Registration Act, the sale deed was registered as document No.598/08. a) Since the document was not returned, the petitioner made a representation on 15.11.2010 to the respondents 1 and 3 and she was asked to bring a demand draft for a sum of Rs.35,590/- which includes Rs.31,635/- towards deficit registration charges. Since the amount was not paid, the matter was referred under section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to the second respondent for determination of the market value. b) The reference under section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act was informed to the petitioner only through information under Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, she has set out the correct market value of the residential plot and even as per section 47A(1), the Registrar has to register the document even if he suspects about the market value of the property and a reference must be made to the second respondent. c) According to the petitioner, the same has to be made within three weeks’ time and the reference made by the third respondent on 5.10.2010 was after two years and 8 months from the date of registration of the sale deed is unjust and unfair and hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the reference made by the third respondent to the second respondent under section 47A(1)of the Indian Stamp Act. 3. As far as the main point urged in this case is concerned, even though there is no period of limitation prescribed for the third respondent to refer the document for valuation to the second respondent, the reference made on the facts and circumstances of the case by the third respondent under section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act after a period of two years is not permissible. That was decided originally by a Single Judge of this Court as reported in Ponnusamy,M. & others v. The District Collector, Erode & others [1992 (2) LW 231], wherein this Court held that such reference should be made within three weeks from the date of completion of the registration of document. 4. Subsequently, the issue was taken up by the Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Erode Dist.,Erode v. M.Ponnusamy [2001 (2) CTC 449], wherein the Division Bench, by following the above said Single Judge order, held that reference should be made immediately after the registration or soon after the registration is completed and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of completion of registered documents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Similar matter was referred to the Full Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in Karmegam,G. v. The Joint Sub-Registrar, IV, Madurai [2007 (5) CTC 737], wherein by overruling the above said two judgments, the Full Bench held that the registering officer should perform his statutory obligation within the reasonable time, which should not in any manner deprive the rights of the parties to the document causing injustice. The Full Bench having found that there is no provision under the Indian Stamp Act prescribing period of limitation for the registering authority to refer valuation under section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Fillip Tiago De Gama [(1990) 1 SCC 277], wherein it was held that in such circumstances the paramount object of statutory interpretation is to discover the legislative intention, has also taken note of section 47A(3) of the Act which prescribes a period of limitation of five years for the Collector to exercise his suo motu powers and observed as follows: “25. Sub-section (3) to section 47A provides for a limitation of five years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance for the Collector to initiate either suo motu action or otherwise to determine the market value of the property. Earlier, the provision contained a time limit of two years and, by means of a subsequent amendment, the said time limit was enlarged as five years. At the two stages viz., the time of passing the Act and of passing of the Amending Act, the legislature was more conscious about prescribing the time limit for exercise of powers by the Collector and, on both the occasions, the provision i.e., sub- section (1) was left untouched. Hence, it cannot be stated that there was inadvertence on the part of the legislature to provide time limit in sub-section (1). The intention of the legislature was to clothe the Collector with ample powers in two ways viz., firstly, allowing five year period for him to exercise his power to initiate action and, nextly, to determine the market value of the property after holding an enquiry as per the procedures stipulated in sub-section (2).” 6. The Full Bench by overruling the above said Single Judge order as well as the Division Bench judgment, has also held as follows: “35. We are of the considered view that no additions could be made to a statute by the Court, if it passes three tests, as adumbrated above in this order. In our opinion, sub-section (1) of section 47A has passed through the said tests and there is no need for the Court to supplement or suggest its view, as a suffix to it. In this respect, we could not subscribe our accent to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in his decision in M.Krishnan and 44 others v. The District Collector, Erode, 1998 (3) CTC 366, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approved by the Division Bench in the District Collector, Erode v. M.Ponnusamy, 2001(2) CTC 449: 2001 (2) MLJ 458.” The Full Bench, by holding that the Court cannot fix time frame, since it is the duty of the legislature and that in the absence of time frame fixed in the provision, it must be within the reasonable time, has ultimately held that, “38. On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the matter and following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, we answer the questions (1) and (ii) as follows: (i) The court cannot fix or suggest a time frame to a statute in the normal course, if the statute is silent with regard to it. (ii) No guideline, in this regard, shall be introduced by the Court. However, it is mandatory on the part of the statutory authority, namely, Registering Officer, to perform his statutory obligations within a reasonable time, which should not be viewed as a one, that has deprived the rights of the parties to the document, causing injustice.” 7. I had an occasion to consider the implications of registration under section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act in the judgment in Tata Coffee Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu [2008 (3) CTC 614]. In the said judgment I also took note of the suo motu powers under section 47A(3) of the Act wherein five year time limit is prescribed for the authority to determine the valuation, and held that after five years, the authority loses his powers of even referring the document under section 47A of the Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the document was presented for registration on 4.2.2008 and the document was in fact registered and it was under the impugned order dated 5.10.2010, the third respondent made a reference to the second respondent for valuation. Considering the totality of the situation and applying the above said principle to the facts of the present case, I do not see that the said reference is hit by any period of limitation. As observed by the Full Bench of this Court, in the absence of specific provision enabling the authority to exercise its powers within the time, the time, which should be reasonable, has to be construed based on the provision of the Act. The provision of the Act itself enables the Collector to have suo motu powers of reopening the entire issue relating to valuation within five years from the date of registration. That being so, I do not see any reason to come to a conclusion that the delay of two years should be fatal so as to hold that the reference under section 47A of the Act itself becomes invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Accordingly, the prayer of the writ petitioner insofar as it challenges the impugned order of the third respondent in making reference to the second respondent under section 47A(1) of the Act stands rejected. However, when once the document has been registered by the registering authority, the registering authority has no manner of right to retain the document and therefore, while dismissing the said writ petition holding that the reference under section 47A of the Act cannot be held to be invalid, the following orders are passed: (i) The registering authority shall release the document to the petitioner with an endorsement in the form of affixing seal indicating that reference under section 47-A with respect to undervaluation and assessment of stamp duty payable is pending. (ii) The registering authority shall simultaneously enter the same in the book maintained by him especially in respect of encumbrance certificate relating to the said property in the interest of the purchaser. (iii) After completion of the entire proceedings under Section 47A including an appeal if any by the parties concerned on payment of the entire stamp duty as finally ascertained by the authority, the registering authority shall remove the seal stated above indicating section 47A have been concluded; (iv) The registering authority shall also make necessary entry in the book relating to encumbrance certificate that no proceeding under section 47A is pending. (v) As per the Stamp Act, pending completion of the entire proceedings under Section 47-A, there shall be a charge in favour of the Government against the property concerned regarding the stamp duty payable. The document shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar Kh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. 2.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) Office of Collector Coimbatore. 3.The Sub Registrar Office of Sub Registrar Udumalpet, Tiruppur District. + 1 cc to Mr.Government Pleader SR.29191 + 1 cc to Mr. T.P.Manoharan, Sr.28702 P.D.Order in W.P.No.516 of 2011 VS(CO) Eu 5.5.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/