Kerala High Court
Abdul Salam vs District Registrar (General) on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 22910 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL SALAM
AGED 57 YEARS
AMBADAN HOUSE, RAYONPURAM PO, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683543
BY ADVS.
P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE
TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
E.S.FIROS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
PERUMPALLY BUILDING, OPP MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE GROUND,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
2 SUB-REGISTRAR
OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR OF REGISTRATION, MINI CIVIL
STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. DEEPA V (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.22910/2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P6 and
P7 issued in proceedings alleging undervaluation leading to payment of
lower amount stamp duty and registration fees in respect of Ext.P1
document. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would refer
to the provisions of Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of
Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as
the Rules) and Rule 7 of the same Rules to contend that there must be an
initial determination that there has been undervaluation before
proceeding to the stage of determination of the extent of undervaluation
in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules. It is also
submitted that, in the facts of the present case, without affording an
opportunity at the stage of determining whether there was actually an
undervaluation, the authorities had proceeded to the stage of
determination of the extent of undervaluation under Rule 7 of the Rules.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the explanation
submitted by the petitioner has not even been considered while issuing
Ext.P6 and thereafter, Ext.P7 notice has been issued proceeding to
determine the extent of undervaluation under Rule 7 of the Rules. It is
also submitted that the provisions of the Rules would require that notice
be issued to the seller as well as all the purchasers and, in the facts of the
present case, the notice has been issued to the petitioner alone, who is
one among the purchasers in Ext.P1 document.
2. The learned Government Pleader would submit that a reading
of Exts.P6 and P7 will show that there has been no final determination of
any undervaluation and it will be open to the petitioner to take up all his
objections before the authorities as and when the proceedings pursuant
to Ext.P7 notice are finalised.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that there is
considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there must be an initial determination of the fact that
there has been undervaluation before proceeding to determine the extent
of undervaluation in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules. That apart, I also see
that notices of proceedings in this case have been issued only to the
petitioner while no notice has been issued to the seller and to the co-
purchasers. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition can be
allowed by setting aside Exts.P6 and P7 and directing the 1 st respondent
to first determine in terms of the provisions contained in sub-rule (4) of
Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules as to whether there is any undervaluation
before proceeding to the stage of adjudication under Rule 7 of the Rules
where the extent of undervaluation will be determined. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, I am also inclined to direct that while
determining as to whether there was any undervaluation, notices must be
issued to the vendor in Ext.P1 as also to the co-purchasers who along
with the petitioner are co-owners of the property. The 1 st respondent
shall issue fresh notice to all the aforesaid persons and thereafter,
proceed in the manner directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22910/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3700/I/2022 OF PERUMBAVOOR SRO
DATED.30.8.2022
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR-VALUE
NOTIFICATION PREVALENT DURING THE
REGISTRATION OF EXT. P1 DATED.30.3.2022
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM IA SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED.30.8.2022
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED.12.1.2023
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED.4.2.2023
Exhibit.P5[a] THE TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE VENGOLA
DATED.8.5.2023
Exhibit.P5[b] TRUE COPY OF DATA BANK EXTRACT ISSUED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,VENGOLA
Exhibit.P5[c] TRUE COPY OF FORM 5 SUBMITTED BY THE
VENDOR DATED.12.7.2022
Exhibit.P5[d] THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.41/2022
OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR DATED.19.9.2022
Exhibit.P5[e] THE TRUE COPY OF CASE STATUS DOWNLOADED
FROM WEBSITE IN OS.41/2022
Exhibit.P.5[f] TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT
DATED.4.2.2023
Exhibit.P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER DATED.26.5.2023
Exhibit.P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL
ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
REGISTRAR DATED.26.5.2023
