IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25362 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNEY GEORGE, (RETD. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM), CHETHICATTU CANAAN, NETHAJI ROAD, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-24. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 4. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 5. THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3,4 SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25362 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AUDIT REPORT ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.36/07 DATED 29.5.07 OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KOLLAM EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION ALONG WITH AN ATTESTED COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2585/04 AND THE FORWARDING LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOCHI DATED 30.7.07 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.12.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.4.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.5.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF OTHE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 8.5.08 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-1410/05 DATED 22.5.08 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 22.5.08 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-13213/05 DATED 24.5.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE GOVERNMENT DATED 19.1.09 EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.09 IN W.P.(C).7593/09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt) 674/2009/ TD DATED 24.7.09 EXT.P13- TRUE COPY OF THE LIABILITY CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, KURUPPAMPADY EXT.P14- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LETTER NO.17422/03/G5(8) DATED 8.104 OF THE DIRECTOR, C.N.T EXT.P15- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THAT ACCOUNT A REGISTER EXT.P16- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).22/04/TD DATED 19.2.04 EXT.P17- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.09 IN W.P.(C).36881/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P18- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION DATED 10.8.09 EXT.P19- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E2-1410/05 DATED 26.10.09 EXT.P19(a)- A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED LIABILITY CERTIFICATE EXT.P20- A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UNDER VALUATION REGISTER (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25362/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner retired as a Sub Registrar on 31.5.2005. She approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).7593/2009 challenging Ext.P8 order fixing liability of Rs.1,13,950/- and Ext.P9 order withholding the same from the DCRG. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner objecting to the fixation of liability. Accordingly, 1st respondent considered the matter and issued Ext.P12 order, upholding the liability of Rs.450/- and Rs.94076/-. On this basis, Ext.P19(a) revised liability certificate was issued. 2. When the matter was taken up, the arguments were mainly on the liability of Rs.94076/- fixed on the petitioner on the ground that stamp value as per the fair value fixed was not realized, while registering documents. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it is stated that the notification dated 5.1.2004 W.P.(C).25362/09 2 issued by the Government fixing fair value was communicated to the Inspector General of Registration on 8.1.2004 and that the Inspector General of Registration in turn, communicated the same to the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam, as per endorsement dated 8.1.2004. According to the petitioner, notification was forwarded by the District Registrar to the petitioner in her capacity as Sub Registrar, Kuruppampady, only on 13.1.2004 and that the same was received in her office at 11.35 am on 15.1.2004. It is stated that on receipt of the notification, same was entered in the Account A register with the date of receipt of the notification. The specific averments of the petitioner is that the objectionable registrations were made before 15.1.2004 and that all registrations made after receipt of the notification, were fully in compliance with the fair value fixed in the notification. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred me to Ext.P17 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C). 36881/2008, where in an identically situated case, this Court W.P.(C).25362/09 3 exonerated the Sub Registrar from the liability fixed in similar circumstances. The factual averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 21 of the writ petition referred to above, have not been controverted in the counter affidavit. If that be so, adopting the principle followed by this Court in Ext.P17 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 4. However a contention has been raised in the counter affidavit that the notification in question was published on 5.1.2004 that the notification is effective from that date and that therefore, any registration subsequent to 5.1.2004 could have been only in compliance with the fair value fixed. Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Fixation of Fair Value of Land) Rules, 1995, provides for publication of fair value of land. Sub rule 3 of Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall also forward copies of the notification to the Inspector General of Registration, District Registrar and the Sub Registrars concerned. In this case, going by the pleadings, the first communication received by the petitioner being the Sub W.P.(C).25362/09 4 Registrar, was only on 15.1.2004. If that be so, the notification, as far as the petitioner is concerned, can take effect only after receipt of the notification, ie, 15.1.2004. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents cannot be accepted. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext.P12 to the extent liability of Rs.94076/- is fixed on the petitioner is quashed. Ext.P19(a) revised liability certificate also will stand quashed to that extent. Respondents are directed to disburse the aforesaid amounts from the withheld amount of the DCRG that is due to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs