S.MANIKUMAR, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the order of the District Registrar, Trichy, the first respondentherein dated 19.02.2007, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that properties to the extent of 1126 sq.ft in S.No.2487, Ward No.2 and 840 Sq.ft in Old T.S.No.1135, New Ward A, New Block 13, New Town Survey No.98, Trichy were purchased by the mother of the petitioner in 1985 and 1995 respectively. Thereafter, she executed a will and last testament, dated 10.06.1995 bequeathing both the properties purchased by her under two sale deeds to the petitioner and his brother Mr.Nagarajan. IT is further stated that the mother of the petitioner died on 18.08.1995, and by virtue of the will, they became the joint owners of the properties. IT is further submitted that the brother of the petitioner relinquished his half undivided right in favour of the petitioner for consideration of Rs.50,000/- and to that effect, he executed a release deed and that the same was presented for registration on 12.11.2002 before the Sub Registrar, Srirangam. However, even after the execution, the second respondent kept the document for want of clarification as to the nature of the said document and the relevant Article of the Stamp Act to be applied to the present transaction from the District Registrar, Trichy, the first respondent herein. It is further stated that the first respondent by proceedings dated 18.02.2003, clarified that documents in P.173 and 174 of 2004 which were executed by the petitioner's brother would come under Article 55 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act and stamp duty has to be collected in accordance with the market value of the property and the first respondent further informed the petitioner that if he is aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 18.02.2003, he can prefer an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai. On receipt of the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai on 09.03.2004 with all the documents. The Inspector General of Registration returned the appeal filed by the petitioner stating that no final order has been passed by the first respondent herein and therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and further directed the petitioner to make a representation before the first respondent herein. It is further stated that the first respondent by his proceedings dated 03.04.2006 informed the petitioner that the release deed executed by his brother in favour of the petitioner would fall under 55(C) of the Indian Stamp Act and by taking proceedings under Sections 38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, it was decided to collect a sum of Rs.87,137/- as stamp duty. It is further submitted that since the document has been executed only on a stamp paper for value of Rs.2,000/-, a further sum of Rs.85,137/- has been imposed as deficit stamp duty and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the same should not be levied and a penalty was also sought to be imposed. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the first respondent herein stating that the release deed has been executed only by his brother and it is chargeable under Article 55-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
(3.) NOT satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents issued a show cause notice during March 2006 alleging that the documents in question has to be stamped under Article 55(C) of the Indian Stamp Act and a sum of Rs.85,137/- is deficit for the aforesaid document. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the said amount should not be imposed as stamp duty, within 15 days, failing which, penalty would be imposed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 03.07.2006 before the first respondent. Pending consideration of the explanation, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1084 of 2007 before this Court for a direction to release the document No.P.174/2002 forthwith on the file of the second respondent herein. When the matter came up for hearing, on instructions the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the respondents have passed an order dated 12.02.2007 to the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court by order dated 19.02.2007 disposed of the writ petition directing the first respondent to serve the order on the petitioner immediately. However, the petitioner received the order dated 19.02.2007 only during March 2007 wherein the petitioner was informed that by taking proceedings under Section 38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, it was decided to collect a sum of Rs.73,905/- as stamp duty and imposed a sum of Rs.71,905/- as stamp duty and Rs.2,155/- as penalty, totaling a sum of Rs.74,060/- as deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed inter alia contending that the order of the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is further contended that had the respondents conducted an enquiry before passing the impugned order, the petitioner would have produced relevant circulars and Government orders to satisfy the respondents that the document in question would fall only under Article 55(C) of the Indian Stamp Act. Though the writ petition has been filed in the year 2007, no counter affidavit, has been filed by the respondents refuting the averments made in the supporting affidavit.;