IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.12. 2008 CORAM:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.4100 of 2008 M/S.Futurekids Asia Pvt Ltd., rep. By its Director, Mr.S.Venkagtasubramanian, 7th floor, Rani Seethai Hall, No.603, Anna salai, Chennai.6. .. Appellant Vs. 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (Inspector General of Registration) Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhopme High Road, Santhome,Chennai.4 2. TheSpecial Deputy Collector (Stamps) O/O The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) Thiruchirapalli. 3. The Sub Registrar, O/O. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai. .. Respondents . . . Appeal filed under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamps Act,1899, r/w Rule 9 of the Tamil nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of instruments) Rules 1968, against the order in Mu.Mu.No.36361/N.4/08 dated 08.09.2008/24.10.2008 on the file of the first respondent rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant against the final order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the second respondent. . . . For Appellant : Mr. E.Om Prakash For respondents : Mr.V.Srikanth (A.G.P.) (C.S.) . . . J U D G M E N T This appeal has been filed challenging the order the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein, dated 08.09.2008 signed and despatched on 24.10.2008 in Mu.MU.No.36361/N.4/08 rejecting the appeal filed against the final order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the second respondent in a petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Section 47-A (5) of the Indian Stamp Act,1899. 2. The brief facts relating to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant purchased the property under three documents, namely, Documents Nos.200700090, 200700091 and 200700092 and were registered on 10.01.2007. After registration, the third respondent had referred the documents to the second respondent and documents were not returned to the petitioner stating that deficit stamp duty is due. Proceedings were taken by the Deputy Collector (Stamps), second respondent herein under Section 47 A of the Indian Stamps Act and orders were passed in the following manner: Form I notice was issued on 09.02.2007 in T.P.Nos.252/07, 253/07 and 258/07 and the Form II Orders were issued by the Special Deputy Collector, (Stamps) Trichirappalli on 08.03.07 in all the three cases signed and despatched on 13.04.2007. It appears that the appellant on 27.04.2007 filed the appeal before the first respondent, namely, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority - Inspector General of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu. It is not in dispute that along with the appeal, a copy of the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) dated 13.04.2007 was not enclosed. The registered documents were not released since the appeal filed on 27.04.2007 was not finally disposed of. In the meanwhile, a batch of writ petitions were filed in W.P.Nos. 37384 to 37387 of 2007, of which, one was for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal presented on 27.04.2007 and other one for release of documents. The said writ petitions were finally disposed of on 21.04.2008 granting the relief for release of documents and with a further direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. This order of the learned single Judge was passed after hearing the respondents and the order has been communicated to the respondents. 3. On 14.07.08, a communication was received by the appellant from the office of the first respondent stating that the appeal dated 09.04.2007 was received on 30.04.2007 and in response to the same, a communication dated 29.05.2007 has been sent earlier and a copy of such communication dated 29.05.2007 was enclosed for information. 4. In the letter dated 29.05.2007 the query-according to the department is that there is no details as to whether the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) has passed a final order so as to entertain the appeal. If no order has been passed by the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), the appellant is directed to approach https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) for necessary relief. 5. On seeing this letter, which was received after more than one year three months after the presentation of the appeal on 27.04.2007, the appellant sent a detailed representation on 24.07.2008 narrating the events which led to the filing of the appeal and the appellants enclosed a copy of the final order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps). In all the three matters, the appellant clearly stated that the letter dated 29.05.2007 was not communicated to them earlier and it was only received along with letter dated 14.07.2008. The appellant further stated that in the writ petitions filed before the High Court in the month of December,2007, they have clearly indicated that the appeal was presented to the frist respondent authority and the respondents in this appeal, who were also the respondents in the writ petition, were aware of the plea with regard to the disposal of the pending appeal. It is only after the receipt of the order of the High Court, that a new stand is taken by the Department raising the doubt in terms of the letter dated 29.05.2007. 6. By the impugned order, dated 24.10.2008, the appeal was rejected stating that the appeal cannot be considered on merits since the appeal has been filed after a delay of more than 13 months and it has been filed without following the rules. Challenging the said rejection order, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the fact that the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) passed an order dated 08.03.2007 in Form II and signed and despatched it on 13.04.2007 is a matter of record and that is not disputed. In the memorandum of appeal dated 27.04.2007, the date of Form II order, namely, T.P.No.Form-II 252/2007 dated 08.03.2007 is referred to and that is the impugned order before the first respondent. Therefore, admittedly, there is an appeal before the first respondent – authority against the order of the second respondent. If the authority had taken up the matter on file, and indicated that the appeal was not in terms of the Provisions of the Act, or if any particulars are required, the appellant would have certainly complied with the same. Even before the High Court, the respondents have not stated that the appeal has not been filed in the prescribed Form or that they have already indicated the short fall in the letter dated 29.05.2007. The Writ Petitions came to be filed in December 2007 and they were disposed of in April 2008. There is no mention by the respondents about this letter dated 29.05.2007. If the authorities had indicated about the non- compliance of the statutory rules, suitable steps could have been taken by the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14.07.2008 enclosing the letter dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29.05.2007 belatedly after the disposal of the writ petitions. Therefore, according to the appellants, the first respondent ought not to have rejected the appeal merely stating that there is delay. Reckoning the date of appeal from the date stated in Form II order. i .e. 08.03.2007, the appeal filed on 27.04.2007 is in time. After the receipt of the letter dated 14.07.2008, appellant have immediately enclosed the order of Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for reference. There is a direction by the learned single Judge of this Court in the Writ Petition to dispose of the Appeal in accordance with law and that order was communicated immediately to the respondents in the month of July, 2008. Therefore, even the authorities were aware that the appeal is pending. The procedural short-fall if any, is a curable defect, and in any event, the appeal has been filed in time and the other issues were pending in the High Court. Therefore, the rejection is not correct and the appeal, according to the appellant, should have been decided on merits. They should not have been thrown out at the threshhold when the appellant has been pursuing the matter diligently before the High Court as well as before the authorities. 8. The Additional Government Pleader (C.S) on instructions from the authorities stated that though the appeal was received on 27.04.2007, the authorities have by letter dated 29.05.2007, communicated to the appellant about the discrepancies in the appeal and to pursue the matter with the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for getting the final order so as to dispose of appeal. He also stated that on receipt of communication dated 27.04.2007 from the appellant, the respondents have looked into the file and found that the appeal has been filed beyond the limitation period and the rules for filing of appeal has not been followed. He, therefore, stated that the rejection dated 24.10.2008 was rightly done. 9. In the instant case, in the impugned order dated 24.10.2008 there is a reference to the file No.Mu.Mu.38361/N4/08 dated 08.09.2008. This reference number does not find place in any one of the communications sent by the authorities, namely, dated 29.05.2007 and 14.07.2008. The fact that an appeal was filed on 27.04.2007 cannot be disputed as it appears with the seal of the office of the first respondent. The writ petition No.37384 of 2007 was pending from December 2007 to 21.04.2008 and the specific prayer in the writ petition was to dispose of the appeal presented on 27.04.2007. 10. In this factual background, there appears to be a total confusion in the date on which the appeal has been presented and received by the authorities and therefore, the case of the appellant has not been decided on merits. The statement of the A.G.P.(C.S) is that the earlier appeal presented on 27.04.2007 has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been closed in another file and a new file has been created pursuant to the representation of the appellant dated 27.04.2008. This, however, cannot be correct in view of the fact that the letter of the appellant dated 27.04.2008 is in response to the letter dated 14.07.2007 issued by the first respondent-Department stating that a communication has been sent on 29.05.2007 seeking clarification on the point. Nowhere it has been stated that the appeal filed on 27.04.2007 has been closed. There is no communication to that effect. Although the communication dated 29.05.2007 says that the appellant should verify whether final order has been passed, there is no dispute that final order has been passed by the second respondent on 08.03.2007 and a reference is found in the appeal presented on 27.04.2007 in the reference column. There is no discrepency on this. If the date of the order of the second respondent is correct, (i.e) 08.03.2007, and the appeal has been presented based on the final order dated 08.03.07, then the appeal that has been presented on 27.04.2007 has to be accepted as a valid appeal. It is of no consequence if the signature of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) appears as dated 13.04.2007. The appeal has been presented on 27.04.2007 based on the final order dated 08.03.2007 in Form II which is already on record. If the appellant had been duly informed about the discrepency at the time of filing of the appeal, the same could have been rectified. Both parties were under the impression that the appeal was pending and the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.31384 to 31387/07 is to dispose of the appeal. The appellant and the respondents were of the view that the appeal was pending on that date. Even in the impugned order dated 24.10.2008 in the reference column, the first respondent has not given the number and date of the appeal, which is said to be rejected. The delay of 13 months has not been reckoned by referring to any particular date and is not clear. when the appeal was numbered and the date of receipt of the appeal according to the department is not indicated. 11. Therefore, on a total confusion about the date of presentation of the appeal according to the department, the appeal papers have been rejected by the first respondent on a misconception about the date. The plea of the appellant that the appeal was presented on 27.04.2007 has to be accepted for the above stated reasons and the first respondent has to hear and decide the appeal as per the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.04.2008 passed in the Writ Petition cited earlier. The rejection will cause prejudice to the appellant as they have filed the appeal in time. The order of rejection, therefore, passed by the first respondent is set aside and the appeal dated 27.04.2007 is directed to be taken up and dispose of on merits. The appellant will be given an opportunity to represent the case. The appellant will be entitled to furnish all necessary papers required for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disposal of the appeal as per Rules, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order along with copy of this order to the first respondent, who shall hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on merits. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar PAL To 1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (Inspector General of Registration) Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhopme High Road, Santhome,Chennai.4 2. TheSpecial Deputy Collector (Stamps) O/O The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) Thiruchirapalli. 3. The Sub Registrar, O/O. The Sub Registrar, Pudukottai. +1cc to Spl. Govt. Pleader Sr 71727 +2ccs to M/s.Ramalingam & Associates Sr 71478 KJI (CO) km/23.1. CMA No. 4100 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/