P. M. Balakrishnan v. Sub Registrar Kannur; District Registrar General Thalassery; Land Revenue Commissioner Thiruvananthapuram; Government of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **==> picture [98 x 82] intentionally omitted <==** **P.M.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.T.C.V.KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR OFFSET PRINTERS CONSORTIUM (P)LTD., RAJ CENTRE, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, KANNUR DT.** |||**P.M.BALAKRISHNAN,**<br>**AGED 56 YEARS,**<br>**S/O.T.C.V.KUNHIRAMA PODUVAL, CHAIRMAN, NORTH MALABAR**<br>**OFFSET PRINTERS CONSORTIUM (P)LTD., RAJ CENTRE, NEAR**<br>**OLD BUS STAND, KANNUR DT.**| |---|---|---| |||**BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)**| |||**SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH**| |**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**||| |**1**||**THE SUB REGISTRAR, KANNUR**| |||**670 002.**| |**2**||**THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL THALASSERY 670 101.**| |**3**||**THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TRIVANDRUM 695 001.**| |**4**||**THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA**| |||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| |||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SECRETARIAT,**| |||**TRIVANDRUM 695 001.**| |||**BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** This case presents a very interesting factual scenario. The petitioner initially presented a document with a stamp value of Rs.1,00,100/- before the 1[st] respondent-sub Registrar, Kannur, showing the value of the property involved to be Rs.14.30 lakhs. However, the said Authority adjudicated the value of the property to be much more than what was shown, based on the Fair Value Register maintained by them and asked the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,25,980/- as stamp value and registration fees, if he wanted the document to be registered. 2. The petitioner says that he preferred an appeal against this, but that while the appeal was pending, he was constrained to have the document registered, by paying the additional stamp value and registration fee of Rs.5,25,980/- because he required the property for his business purposes. He says that, the Appellate Authority, **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **3** thereafter, issued Ext.P6 order wherein it was concluded that the petitioner has to remit only Rs.1,00,100/- as the stamp value and registration fee and that the additional amount paid by him, namely Rs.5,25,980/-, was in excess. He says that he, therefore, preferred an application for refund of the additional value, through Ext.P7, but that it was rejected through Ext.P8 order, issued by the District Registrar General, Thalassery, against which he preferred a further proceeding before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which Authority also, however, rejected his request through Ext.P12. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exts.P8 and P12 orders be struck down and the competent respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,25,980/- to him forthwith. 3. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, in answer to the afore, submits that the petitioner cannot claim the amount already paid by him since he had, with full volition got the document registered for such value, even though his appeal against the initial **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **4** valuation was pending. He says that had the petitioner waited for the appeal to get over, certainly the document could have been registered for a much lesser value and he would not have had to pay the additional stamp duty and registration charges, as has been demanded by the Registrar. The learned Senior Government Pleader concludes by saying that since the petitioner has already got the document registered, it is not possible to have the additional stamp duty and registration fee refunded in any manner. 4. When I evaluate the facts involved in this case, there is no doubt that the matter has now come to this stage solely because of the fact of the petitioner got the document registered without waiting for the appeal to be concluded. That said, however, I must also keep in mind that the appeal was disposed of by the District Collector nearly two years later and perhaps this delay persuaded the petitioner to have the document registered, since he says he wanted the property for his business purposes, he being a medium and small scale Entrepreneur. Obviously, therefore, **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **5** he is a victim of circumstances and consequently, he is justified in seeking that the additional amounts paid by him be refunded, particularly when Ext.P6 appellate order is fully to his benefit. 5. Even when I find as above, I am not sure if the provisions of the Stamp Act would, in any manner, come to the avail of the petitioner because it is now well settled that allowance for spoiled, unused and rendered unfit stamps as provided in Chapter V of the Kerala Stamp Act 1959, would only apply to those category of stamps which are enumerated therein. The issue whether the stamps used by the petitioner in this particular case would fall in to one of those categories being unclear, it could not be possible for this Court to affirmatively speak or to conclude on it in this judgment. 6. That said, when I go through Ext.P12, which is the order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, it is stated therein that the amounts cannot be refunded to him because the law does not provide for it. However, the Commissioner **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **6** does not refer to Section 47 of the Stamp Act as also Section 44 thereof which the petitioner contends, provide for such contingencies. I am, therefore, of the view that the impact of Sections 44 and 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act will certainly have to be considered by a competent Authority and I deem it appropriate that this be done by the District Collector, who is the first Authority, rather by the Land Revenue Commissioner. 7. In such perspective and without entering in to the merits of the any of the other contentions in this writ petition, I direct the District Collector to reconsider the petitioner's claim, taking note of sections 44 and 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act and adverting to the judgments of this Court in _**N.P.Raman Kutty & Another** v._ _**District Collector Civil Station, Thrissur & Another**_ [2017 (4) KHC 755] and _**Padmakumary & Another** v._ _**Lekshmikutty Amma, Puthen Veedu**_ [2010 (2) KLT 554], which are pronouncements with respect to Section 47 of the Kerala Stamp Act, _de hors_ the earlier decision taken in Exts.P6 and **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **7** P12 orders. 8. To facilitate this exercise and even though I have not conclusively held against its contents, I set aside Ext.P12 and leave liberty to the District Collector to decide whether any modification to Ext.P8 order is required, after the enquiry as ordered above is completed. If, after this exercise, the District Collector feels that Ext.P8 requires to be modified, in view of Sections 44 and 47 or any other provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, then he will be at liberty to issue a fresh order modifying Ext.P8 appropriately and will intimate such decision to the petitioner without any delay. 9. I am choosing not to set aside Exts.P8 and P10, since I deem it appropriate to leave liberty to the District Collector to take a fresh decision and then determine whether any amendment to Ext.P8 order is necessary; in which event, he will be at liberty to do so and the terms of Ext.P12 order would not stand in his way for this purpose. The afore exercise shall be completed by the District Collector as expeditiously as is possible, after affording an **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **8** opportunity of being heard the petitioner also, but not later than four months from the date of a receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- nak **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** **WP(C).No.28202 of 2015** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3575/2012**| |---|---| ||**DATED 1/10/2012**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL**| ||**WITH ENDORSEMENT**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM WITH**| ||**MINUTES FO MEETING**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF**| ||**REGISTRATION**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE**| ||**DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DATED**| ||**1/3/2014**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 21/5/2014**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED**| ||**BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 13/6/2014**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP.28840/2014**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED**| ||**5/2/2015**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 17/8/2015.**| **==> picture [145 x 41] intentionally omitted <==** **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE**