Madras High Court
K.Padma Priya vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.5424 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD).No.5424 of 2025
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.3970 of 2025
K.Padma Priya .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The District Registrar,
Madurai South Registration District,
Madurai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
The Sub Registration Office,
Thiruparankundram,
Madurai District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned
order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent / The Sub Registrar,
Thiruparankundram and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Vijaykarthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
W.P.(MD).No.5424 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
06.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent / The Sub Registrar,
Thiruparankundram.
2. The petitioner purchased the property situated at Re-Survey No.
344/4 at Thiruparankundram Village, Thiruparankundram Taluk, Madurai
District. The sale deed was registered on 26.04.2021 in Document No.
1712/2021. After a lapse of four years and more, the third respondent
passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, calling upon the petitioner to
pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,99,680/- and deficit registration charges of
Rs.3,99,836/-. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition.
3. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. In
the written instructions that have been given to Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, the
third respondent has pleaded that he is invoking the power under Section
47A of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899 on the basis of the internal audit
report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
4. In order to enable to Mr.R.Suresh Kumar to make further
submissions, I adjourned the matter today.
5. I heard Mr.Vijay Karthikeyan for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh
Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. Mr.Vijay Karthikeyan states that once the registration is completed,
the Sub Registrar has to refer the matter immediately for undervaluation
under Section 47A(1) of the Stamp Act. He relies upon the judgment of this
Court in M.Parthasarathy and another Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar-II,
Chennai and others, W.P.No.4097 of 2015 dated 23.06.2022 to press
home this point.
7. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar states that the period of limitation for a Sub
Registrar to refer the matter under Section 47-A is five years and therefore,
the impugned order does not require any interference.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I have
gone through the records.
9. As rightly contended by Mr.Vijay Karthikeyan, the Sub Registrar
has to refer the matter under Section 47-A(1) to the District Collector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
immediately on registration of the document. This issue was the subject
matter before a 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. The Division Bench, taking into consideration that the
rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu does not contemplate a time
limit, had directed the State of Tamil Nadu to look into this issue and frame
rules accordingly.
10. In exercise of the powers vested with the State of Tamil Nadu
under Section 47A read with Section 75 of the Stamp Act, the Government
amended the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules of 1968. Taking cue from the order of the Division Bench
in Alfred's case, Rule 3 of the said Rules were amended. The Government
imposed a duty on the Registering Officer to refer an instrument under
Section 47-A(1) to the Collector within 15 days from the date of registration
of such instrument.
11. It is pertinent to point out that though two judgments of this Court
in The District Collector, Erode and Ors. v. M. Ponnusamy, 2001 (2)
CTC 449 and S.Sivasubramaniam v. Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority-cum- Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
Road, Chennai- 600028 and others, 2014 (1) MLJ 500, had given a
period of three weeks for reference under Section 47-A(1), the Government,
in its wisdom, has reduced the said period from three weeks to 15 days.
When such is the position, it is not open to the Sub Registrar to refer the
matter after a period of four years of registration.
12. Apart from that, there is another insurmountable obstacle for the
third respondent. The power of suo motu revision of valuation can be done
only by the Collector. It cannot be done by the third respondent/Sub
Registrar. When the statute has conferred power on the Collector, it cannot
be usurped by the Sub Registrar and be exercised by him. This view of mine
is in line with the view taken by my brother Justice N.Anand Venkatesh in
M.Parthasarathy and another Vs. Joint Sub Registrar-II and others,
W.P.No.4097 of 2015 dated 23.06.2022. The relevant portion is extracted
hereunder:
“11.There is yet another ground which impels this Court to interfere
with the proceedings of the respondents. A close look at the notice
issued by the 3rd respondent and also the counter affidavit filed by
the 3rd respondent shows that the action has been initiated under
Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. This power under
Section 47-A(3) is a suo motu power that has been vested upon the
Collector. This power obviously could not have been exercised by the
1st respondent and the only manner in which the 1st respondent
could have made a reference to the 3rd respondent is under Section
47-A(1) of the Act. That apart, after the notice was issued by the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
respondent, the petitioners had given a detailed reply and that was
not taken into consideration and the deficit stamp duty as
determined by the 1st respondent was fixed by the 3rd respondent.
Pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent has initiated proceedings to
recover the deficit stamp duty along with interest from the
petitioners.”
13. Hence, both on the grounds of violation of the mandatory period
fixed by the Government under Rule 3(5) of the Tamil Nadu Stamps
(Prevention and undervaluation of Instruments) Rules as well as on the
ground of jurisdiction, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly,
the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
07.03.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The District Registrar,
Madurai South Registration District,
Madurai.
3.The Sub Registrar,
The Sub Registration Office,
Thiruparankundram,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Lm
07.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/04/2025 11:00:58 am )
