IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 1014 of 2000(U) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 39, PARAYANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KONNACKAMALIL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI. OFFICE AT THODUPUZHA. 2. TAHSILDAR (RR), NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRARS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 11/01/2008 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION) BY SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 1014/2000 ORDER ON CMP NO. 1477/2000 IN O.P.NO. 1014/2000 DISMISSED. 11/01/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/99. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/06/1998 OF R1. P3 : COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DATED 30/12/1999. P4 : COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3 DATED 30/12/1999. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------- O.P. No. 1014 of 2000 ------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded as additional 6th respondent in the original petition. 2. It is seen that large number of orders are issued by the District Registrars demanding differential stamp duty without proper adjudication. This is a clear violation of the proceedings contemplated under Section 45B of the Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder. All such demand notices, issued in violation of the Act, are being cancelled by this Court and ordered readjudication. It is seen that District Registrars are repeating the same mistake. I feel, continued gross violation of the statutory provisions and issuance of such orders should be seriously viewed and exorbitant cost should be levied against the District Registrars concerned. 3. The Inspector General of Registration, additional 6th respondent impleaded herein, is therefore directed to issue a circular to all the District Registrars directing them to strictly follow the procedure under the statute and issue adjudication orders after conducting an enquiry and based on the enquiry, communicate the O.P.NO. 1014/2000 -2- proposal for determination of market value and differential stamp duty, and complete adjudication after giving an opportunity to the party concerned to file written reply and hearing in the matter. This circular should be communicated by the Inspector General of Registration to the District Registrars. Thereafter, if orders of this nature are issued by the District Registrars, this Court will impose cost on the person concerned. If there is non-compliance of the circular to be issued by the Inspector General of Registration as above, disciplinary action also should be initiated. The circular issued pursuant to this direction should be filed in this Court by the Inspector General through the Advocate General within a period of six weeks from now. 4. Since the impugned demand is raised without giving an opportunity to hear the petitioner, this original petition is disposed of directing 1st respondent to issue show cause notice stating the market value he proposes to determine and the basis for the same and then give an opportunity to petitioner to file written objection and pass adjudication order after hearing him. Petitioner will produce copy of the judgment and his present address before 1st respondent for compliance. First respondent is directed to pass O.P.NO. 1014/2000 -3- fresh orders within a period of three months from now. All proceedings for recovery will be kept in abeyance for four months from now and thereafter recovery will be based on fresh adjudication orders to be issued by 1st respondent as above. The present order will be recalled as and when fresh orders are issued. Learned Government Pleader will forward a copy of the judgment to the Addl. 6th respondent, the Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, for compliance. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg