The Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs B.J.Radhakrishnan
2021 Latest Caselaw 24625 Mad

                                                                       REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 & 41 of 2015



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 14.12.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                     REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 and 41 of 2015


                     1.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
                       Head of Department of Registration,
                       Santhome, Chennai-28.

                     2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
                       Collector's Office,
                       Thanjavur.

                     3.The Joint Sub-Registrar-I,
                       Office of Sub-Registrar,
                       Thanjavur Town.                           ... Petitioners in both petitions
                                                         vs.



                     B.J.Radhakrishnan                         ... Respondent in both petitions


                     COMMON PRAYER : Review Applications are filed under Order 47
                     Rule 1 of C.P.C read with 114 of C.P.C, to review the order dated
                     19.04.2013 made in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.180 & 181 of 2013.
                                   In both petitions
                                   For Petitioners     :M/s.S.Jeyapriya
                                                        Government Advocate

                                   For Respondent      : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/4
                                                                              REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 & 41 of 2015




                                                   COMMONORDER

                                  Both the review applications are filed by the petitioners to review

                     the orders passed in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.180 and 181 of 2013 on the

                     ground that the learned Judge has failed to consider the guideline value

                     prepared by the Authorities periodically and there is no provision in the

                     Stamp Act to return the documents under Section 47A of Stamp Act.



                                  2. However, the petitioners have to raise all these grounds in the

                     appeal, instead of review. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the

                     respondent refers to a judgment reported in 2014 (2) CWC 162 in the

                     case of THAJUNISSA AND ANOTHER vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY

                     COLLECTOR (STAMPS), CHENNAI COLLECTORATE, in which, it

                     has been held that within two years from the date of registering the Sale

                     Deeds, it has to be returned to the purchaser.



                                  3. In the light of the above facts, this Court does not find any error

                     in the order passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD).Nos.180 and 181 of

                     2013. However, the petitioners are directed to return the Sale deeds to the

                     respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

                     order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     2/4
                                                                           REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 & 41 of 2015



                                  4. Accordingly, the Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.



                                                                                             14.12.2021

                     Index : Yes/No
                     Internet : Yes/No
                     ssb

                     Note: Issue Order Copy on 21.12.2021.




                     Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
                     web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
                     that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
                     responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     3/4
                                                REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 & 41 of 2015




                                                          S.ANANTHI, J.

ssb

REV.APLC.(MD).Nos.40 and 41 of 2015

14.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis