Madras High Court
C.Kanthimathi vs The Deputy Inspector General Of ... on 28 February, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.5462 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.5462 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.3991 of 2025
C.Kanthimathi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Trichy – 620 023.
2.The Sub Registrar,
O/o. the Sub Registrar,
Karur West,
Karur. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to return the document
registered in No.6603/2024 before the 2nd respondent in respect of land and
building located in S.F.No.2269/5 to an extent of 841 Sq.ft. (Plot No.D) and 948
Sq.ft (Plot No.E) located in Andankovil East, Rasi Nagar, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur District within time frame as fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam
For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam
Government Advocate
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
W.P.(MD).No.5462 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second
respondent to return the document registered in Document No.6603/2024 dated
13.06.2024 and for consequential orders.
2. The petitioner purchased a property situated at S.F.No.2269/5 to an
extent of 841 Sq.ft. (Plot No.D) and 948 Sq.ft (Plot No.E) located in
Andankovil East, Rasi Nagar, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. The
alienation was made on 13.06.2024 for sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-.
When the sale deed was presented for registration, the document was originally
assigned a Pending Document No.54/2024 and thereafter, registered as
Document No.6603/2024.
3. The petitioner received an intimation from the first respondent that the
second respondent had asked him to fix the value of the land and he had fixed it
at Rs.4000/- per square feet. Objecting to the said valuation, the petitioner sent
her reply on 30.09.2024. Despite the fact that a reply has been given, the
document had not been returned by the second respondent. Hence, the Writ
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
4. I heard Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam for the petitioner and
Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate, who took notice for the
respondents.
5. Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam relies upon G.O.Ms.No.174, Commercial
Taxes and Registration (J1) Department, dated 28.11.2017 and urges that as the
Government had fixed a time limit of 15 days from the date of registration for
reference to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act of
1899, the petitioner is entitled to have the document returned to her.
6. Mr.P.T.Thiraviam argues that in terms of Rule 27 of the Registration
Rules, the respondents are entitled to impound the documents and take action in
terms of the Indian Stamp Act. He states that the second respondent has
recommended the document for initiation of action under Section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act on 27.02.2025. He adds the period of 15 days fixed under the
Government Order is only directory and not mandatory. Hence, he urges that the
second respondent is entitled to retain the documents.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
8. There can be no dispute that under Rule 27 of the Registration Rules,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
the Registering Officer can point out to the party that the document is
deficiently stamped and can give him two options,
(i) either to make good the deficiency or,
(ii) impound the document in terms of the Stamp Act and refer the same
for necessary action.
9. The issue as to whether a time limit can be fixed by the Court for return
of the documents was a subject matter of discussion before the Division Bench
of this Court in The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District and another Vs. M.Alfred and others in W.A.(MD).Nos.
1176 to 1179 of 2017, etc., batch, dated 09.10.2017. While disposing of the
appeals, the Division Bench passed the following order:
“(i) The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial
Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, is
directed to consider appropriate amendment fixing a time limit for
the registering authority to refer the instrument under Section 47-A
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
(ii) The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial
Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai, or
the Inspector General of Registration and Controlling Revenue
Authority shall issue appropriate circulars or directions to the
Collector, to comply with rule 7(1) of Tamil Nadu State (Prevention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.”
10. In pursuance to the directions given by the Division Bench, the
Government of Tamil Nadu fixed a time limit of 15 days, after registration of an
instrument by the Registering Officer, for referring to the Collector under
Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. It further fixed a time limit of 15 days
from the date receipt of the proposal from the Registering Officers for the
Collectors to issue notices under Form-I. In accordance with this decision, the
Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules of
1968 were also directed to be amended.
11. The issue whether 15 days' time fixed by the State Government is
mandatory or directory, was a subject matter of interpretation by the Supreme
Court in Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others Vs.
K.Baskaran, AIR 2020 SC 3194. The Supreme Court had framed a specific
question in this regard. The question being “whether the stipulation of period of
three months in Rule 7 is mandatory or directory?”. The Supreme Court held
that the time limit fixed under Rule 7 incorporating a period of three months for
passing of final orders determining the market value was essentially to guide the
public officials to complete the process as early as possible. It further declared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
that it was not intended to create a right in favour of those who had prima facie
conducted themselves prejudicing public interest.
12. The plea of Mr.Thiraviam is that the interpretation that has to be
applied to Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules of 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), has to be applied
to Rule 3(5) also.
13. Before coming to Rule 3(5), the Registering Authority is called upon
under Rule 3(2) to satisfy himself that the instrument gives the market value of
the properties. In case the market value, as required under Section 27 of the
Stamp Act, is not set forth, the Registering Officer is entitled to refuse
registration. Under Rule 3(3), the Registering Officer, in order to come to the
conclusion whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the
instrument or not, is entitled to make such enquiries as he deems fit. The rule
not only empowers him to elicit information from the concerned parties, but
also to call for and examine any records, that is available with any public officer
or authority. Under Rule 3(4), he is entitled to verify the Guidelines Register
that has been supplied to him. It is only after having gone through all these
processes, if he still entertains a doubt, the Registering Officer should register
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
the document and refer it under Section 47-A(1) within a period of fifteen days
from the date of registration.
14. The view in K.Baskaran's case holding Rule 7 as directory was on
account of the fact that the Court had come to the conclusion that the
Government coffers were being denied its rightful dues. In paragraph 30 (SCC
judgment), the Supreme Court specifically found that if for any reason, the
proceedings are not completed within three months and held to be vitiated, then,
the public interest would suffer and the persons, who were prima facie
responsible for suppressing the real value, would stand to gain. They were
dealing with a situation where Rules 4, 5 and 6 had been gone through and the
procedure was at the stage of Rule 7. The Court did not rule upon on Rule 3(5)
and hold it to be directory. The reason given by the Supreme Court, as extracted
above, shows that they did not want to fix a time limit when much water had
flown under the bridge and the proceedings were at the stage of final orders.
Holding Rule 7 to be directory was on the aspect of conclusion of the
proceedings and not with respect to initiation of the proceedings. The time limit
fixed under Rule 3(5) relates to the stage of initiation. That cannot be compared
with Rule 7, which speaks about conclusion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the sale deed was
presented for registration on 13.06.2024. The fifteen days' period, as fixed by
G.O.Ms.No.174 dated 28.11.2017, expired with 28.06.2024. The second
respondent did not exercise the power within the time period. It was nearly 1½
months later that a notice was sent by the first respondent, who is not the
authority under the Indian Stamp Act, informing the petitioner that he is
proposing to fix the value at Rs.4000/- per square feet.
16. It is too well settled proposition of law, but I have to reiterate the
same that when an act is required to be performed in a particular way, it should
be performed in that manner and in that way and in no other way. When the Sub
Registrar has been directed by the Government to initiate action, if he so
desires, within a period of 15 days from the date of registration, it is certainly
not open to him to extend the time fixed by the Government by a further period
of seven months and to decide to refer the matter only on 27.02.2025.
17. I should also point out that the State authorities should act fairly when
it comes to litigation. They are not entitled to present a fait accompli to the
Court. The petitioner had approached the respondents on several occasions for
return of the document. There was absolutely no action on the side of the
respondents. It was thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
Writ Petition. This Writ Petition came to be filed on 25.02.2025 and advance
notice is given to the respondents regarding the filing of the case. In order to
avoid any orders being passed, much after the time period has expired, the
second respondent pleads that he is exercising the power under Rule 27(ii) of
the Registration Rules and referring the matter under the Stamp Act. If this
Court were to permit the second respondent to violate the Government Orders,
it would only result in anarchy. As the power has not been exercised within the
time limit fixed by the Government and since the respondents are trying to
present a fait accompli after receipt of notice in the Writ Petition, I have to hold
that the second respondent is not entitled to present a fait accompli.
18. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition succeeds and
accordingly, it is allowed. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to
return the document in Document No.6603/2024 to the petitioner by Monday
(03.03.2025). Mr.P.T.Thiraviam, learned Government Advocate shall intimate
this order to the second respondent/Sub Registrar enabling him to return the
document. The petitioner shall make herself available to receive the document
on Monday (03.03.2025) and compliance shall be reported to this Court on
04.03.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition stands closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
19. Post the matter on 04.03.2025 under the caption 'for reporting
compliance'.
28.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
To
1.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
O/o. the Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Trichy – 620 023.
2.The Sub Registrar,
O/o. the Sub Registrar,
Karur West,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
28.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 08:11:20 pm )
