Geetha vs The Sub Registrar, Kadakkal
2024 Latest Caselaw 13777 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13777 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 May, 2024

Kerala High Court

Geetha vs The Sub Registrar, Kadakkal on 28 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
        TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 20398 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

            GEETHA
            AGED 47 YEARS
            D/O.THANKAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, GOPI BHAVAN,PULIPPARA
            P.O., CHINGELI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.K.SIJU
            SRI.PRATHEESH.P
            SMT.RENY ANTO


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE SUB REGISTRAR, KADAKKAL
            SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KADAKKAL,KOLLAM-691536.
    2       THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL
            DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
            KOLLAM-691013.
    3       THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
            REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
            695035.
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No. 20398 of 2016                    2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
                    =========================
                          W.P(C) No. 20398 of 2016
                   ==========================
                     Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024

                                   JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

"i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st respondent to register Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b) rectification deeds by permitting the petitioner to remit only the difference in stamp duty along with registration fees if any.

ii. To declare that the 1st respondent is not entitled to collect the entire stamp duty afresh for the registration of Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b) rectification deeds and the petitioner is only liable to remit the differnce in stamp duty for properties comprised in Re.Sy.No.63/3 and 63/8 of Kadakkal Village.

iii. To pass such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)"

2. The petitioner had landed properties in the Re.

Sy. No. 63/3 and 63/8 of Block NO. 50 in Kadakkal Village

which are lying contiguously is the submission. Petitioner

sold 3 extent of property to three different persons by

executing Ext.P1 to P3 sale deeds on 12.11.2015 is the

further submission. In the sale deed, it is submitted that,

there was a mistake crept with regard to the Resurvey

Subdivision. Instead of Subdivision '8', it was entered as 3

is the submission. Hence the petition decided to register

three rectification deeds to correct the mistake regarding the

Subdivision by Ext.P6, P6(a) and P6(b). It is submitted that

the petitioner offered to remit the additional stamp duty for

the difference in fair value of the properties. The properties

in subdivision three is of fair value of Rs.8000 and property

in subdivision 8 is the fair value of Rs.15000/-is the

submission. It is submitted that the 1st respondent instead

of accepting the additional stamp duty for the difference in

fair value, refused to register the rectification deeds insisting

the remittance of the entire stamp duty afresh. According to

the petitioner in similar circumstances of this Court passed

Ext.P8 judgment directing to collect the difference in stamp

duty. Hence this Writ Petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the Government Pleader.

4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration

on 24.06.2016, this Court passed the following order.

"In the meanwhile, if the petitioner produces the rectification deed for registration before the second respondent, same shall be registered. It is made clear

that the petitioner is liable to pay only the stamp duty and the registration fee payable in accordance with the fair value of the property, less the amount already paid by him while registering Ext.P1 document. The registration of the rectification deed will be subject to further orders to be passed in this Writ Petition"

5. Now it is submitted by the Government Pleader,

that the documents are already registered, after collecting

some additional fee. This Court perused Ext.P8 judgment.

Relevant portion of the Ext.P8 judgment is extracted

hereunder;

"4. However, that is not the direction in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 directs the entire stamp duty to be paid, deeming it to be a fresh registration. This Court is not convinced that there are any new rights created. The boundaries of the property, the extent, the vendor and vendee, the location, all of which are identical in Exts.P1 and P2. The only difference is with respect to the sub-division number. If at all, the property existing in that sub-division has a higher fair value, then definitely the Registration Authority would be entitled the demand the additional duty determined on properties existing in Survey No.420/2, after deducting what has been paid as per Ext.Pl.

5. The petitioners shall produce the rectification deed Ext.P2, for registration and the 1st respondent shall determine if any additional duty is payable and if that is payable, the petitioner shall be issued with an order in writing. The petitioner shall be given a weeks time to pay such additional duty, and on such production of the deed with the additional stamp duty, definitely the registration has to be carried out. To facilitate that, Ext.P3 is set aside."

6. I am of the considered opinion that similar situation

is there in this case also. It's only a correction of the Survey

Number. I think the Interim Order passed by this Court can be

made absolute.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of making the

order dated 24.06.2016 as made absolute.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE mus

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1: THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1245/2015 OF KADAKKAL SRO DATED 12.11.2015 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SANTHOSH KUMAR. P2: THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1244/2015 DATED 12.11.2015 OF KADAKKAL SRO EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SMT.ASHA.

P3: THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1243/2015 DATED 12.11.2015 OF KADAKKAL SRO EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SMT.AKHILA. P4: THE COPY OF FAIL VALUE REGISTER CONTAINING PROPERTY IN RE.SY.NO.63/3.

P5: THE COPY OF FAIR VALUE REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN RE.SY.NO.63/8 OF KADAKKAL VILLAGE.

P6: THE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CORRECTING THE MISTAKE IN EXT.P1.

P6(a): THE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CORRECTING THE MISTAKE IN EXT.P2.

P6(b): THE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CORRECTING THE MISTAKE IN EXT.P3.

P7: THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7(a): THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.18879/2015 DATED 17.7.2015.