Shaine Ravindranathan vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 4164 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 8904 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

          SHAINE RAVINDRANATHAN
          AGED 49(FORTY NINE) YEARS, SON OF REVEENDRANATHAN E.P.,
          RETIRED IT PROFESSIONAL,
          V/770, ESWARAMANGALATH HOUSE, CHALAKKULAM DESOM,
          METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KOTTAPURAM POST,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680667
          BY ADVS.
          BASIL MATHEW
          NINAN JOHN
          SANJANA SARA VARGHESE ANNIE
          ARYA A.R.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
          GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695001
    2     DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, CHEMBUKKAVU,
          THRISSUR CITY P. O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
    3     SUB REGISTRAR
          KODUNGALLOOR, STAR NAGAR,
          KODUNGALLOOR P.O,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 680664
    4     PHOENIX CARS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
          NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P. O.,
          ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682025,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAJESH P. B.

          BY SRI.BIMAL K NATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC NO.8904 of 2023

                                       2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

challenging Ext.P2 order of the District Registrar(General)

determining that the stamp duty payable on Ext.P1 lease deed

is the duty payable on a lease exceeding ten years.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit that such an interpretation is

practically impossible on account of the stipulations contained

in the lease deed. The interpretation that Ext.P1 is for lease

exceeding ten years is on the sole ground that there is a

typographical error in the table appended to Clause 2 in row

No.5 where, the rent payable for the period from 01.10.2030

has been indicated as payable upto '31.09.2032'. It is the

case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no

date as '31.09.2032' and that the actual date should have

been 31.08.2032. It is submitted that order was passed

behind the back of the petitioner.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would

refer to the statement filed in this Court and would submit WPC NO.8904 of 2023

that considering the entirety of Clause 2, there is no mistake

in the officer adjudicating the term of lease as one exceeding

ten years. However, it is very fairly pointed out that the

impugned order was passed, without affording to the

petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply

would submit that where mistakes as one referred to above

have crept in while preparing the deed, the issue can be

settled by the lessor and the lessee executing an affidavit

stating the actual period for which, the lease will run and the

petitioner may be permitted to adopt that procedure before

the District Registrar(General).

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 is

quashed principally on the ground that though notice was

issued to the petitioner, the matter was adjudicated, without

affording to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It

will be open to the petitioner to demonstrate before the

District Registrar(General) that the lease is actually one not

exceeding ten years and the stamp duty payable is only in WPC NO.8904 of 2023

such manner. If necessary, it will be open to the petitioner

and the lessee to execute an affidavit to the effect that the

lease is only for a period not exceeding ten years. The

petitioner shall mark appearance before the District

Registrar(General) at 11.00 a.m. on 05.04.2023. I make it

clear that I am not expressing any opinion in the merits of the

matter. It will be open to the District Registrar(General) to

decide the matter, in accordance with law

Sd/-

GOPINATH P., JUDGE rkj WPC NO.8904 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8904/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LEASE DEED DATED 07.12.2022 PREPARED BY THE PARTIES Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER BEARING NO. DRGTSR/154/2023-INS3-A DATED 21.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT