THOMAS GEORGE Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

(2.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by the first respondent, Inspector General/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, dated 18.2.2003. By the said order, the first respondent confirmed the demand of deficit stamp duty made on the petitioner, his brother and sister, and called upon them to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,369/- in respect of Deed of Partition dated 22.3.2000, registered as document No.983/2002, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Purasaiwalkam.

(3.) The facts of case lies in a narrow campus. The land in question is comprised in Plot No.75, Door No.4, Third Cross Street, Sylvan Lodge Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai. The Writ Petitioner Mr.Thomas George, purchased about 3/4th undivided share of the total extent of land by a sale deed dated 16.5.1980, registered as document No.946/80. His brother Dr.Thomas George, purchased the remaining 1/4th share by a sale deed dated 18.06.1986, registered as Document No.1447 of 1986. It appears that subsequently, the Writ Petitioner sold about 900 sq.ft. of land to a third party. Therefore, the total extent owned by the petitioner and his brother Dr.Thomas George was 3 grounds and 674 sq.ft. A Deed of Partition dated 22.3.2000, was entered into between the petitioner, his brother Dr.Thomas George and his sister Sarah Mathai. The said document was presented before the Sub Registrar, Purasaiwalkam, who entertained the document for registration, accepted the stamp duty paid by the petitioner and the parties to the document and registered the same as document No.983/2000 and the document was also released. Subsequently, the District Registrar, Central Chennai, issued a notice date 18.3.2000 purported to be under section 33 A of the Indian Stamp Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), stating that in respect of the Deed of Partition, registered as Document No.983/2000, the petitioner has to remit the deficit Stamp duty of Rs.6,36,369/- within a period of fifteen days. In response to the said communication, the Writ Petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.3.2000. Thereafter the District Registrar issued a notice in Form No.I under section 47-A(3) of the Act, giving details with regard to the value of the property in question, etc. and how the deficit stamp duty has been arrived at. Subsequently, another detailed representation was given by the petitioner on 20.4.2000,by stating that all the three parties to the Deed of Partition had pooled their resources for the purpose of purchase of the land without conveyance and put up three floors, each floor for each one of the party and all the three parties being brothers and sister, the document was rightly treated as a Deed of Partition and therefore the demand was not sustainable. That apart it was pointed out that the procedure contemplated under the Act was not followed prior to issuance of the demand.