ORDER
Hakeem, J.
1. This petition is before us on a reference made by Shivashankar Bhat,J., under S. 9 of the High Court Act. The question referred for consideration is whether it is open for this Court to direct return of a document to the party pending adjudication of the proceedings under S. 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act (‘the Act’) before statutory authority.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as
follows :
The petitioner purchased house property bearing No. 843, 15th Main, 3rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-34 under a sale
deed dt. 6-8-1992 registered as document No. 3248/4992-93 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk. After registering the document the Sub-Registrar having entertained reason to believe that the property has been under-valued for the purpose of Stamp Duty made a reference to the District Registrar (Deputy Commissioner), Bangalore District for adjudication of the correct market value thereof and forwarded the original document to him along with his reference order. The petitioner’s request for return of the document was rejected on the ground that it can be secured from the adjudicating authority after finalisation of the proceedings.
3. In pursuance of the reference made by the Sub-Registrar, the first respondent has initiated proceedings under S. 45A of the Act by issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause against enhancement of the value of the property for the purpose of levying additional Stamp Duty. Even though one year has elapsed since the date of registration, the first respondent has not passed any order. Hence an application dt. 20-8-1993 was made for return of the documents on the ground that it is required for the purpose of getting the khata transferred in his name and for other purposes. Along with his application he has produced a certified copy of the sale deed and further undertook to produce the original deed before him whenever it is required. However the respondent refused either to return the document or to issue an endorsement in this behalf. Hence the petitioner sought for a mandamus directing return of the registered Sale deed.
4. The petitioner has urged the following contentions:–
(1) In the absence of a specific provision under the Act the adjudicating authority has no power to retain the document which is his property on which Stamp Duty has been paid on the declared value.
(2) That, in any event, in view of the ruling in Pushpa M. v. State of Karnataka (1987 (1) Kant LJ 77), the document could be returned subject to the petitioner’s undertaking to
produce the same whenever required during the adjudicating proceeding. In that case, having considered the scope of S. 45-A, vis-avis Ss. 34 and 37 of the Act, the learned single Judge has held that when the Sub-Registrar is of the view that the document is under-valued the case squarely falls within the purview of S. 45-A of the Act empowering him to refer the same to the Deputy Commissioner, who has to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity to the party concerned to prove the valuation mentioned in the document. The retention of the documents by the Deputy Commissioner in the circumstances was not necessary and that the same can be directed to be returned subject to an undertaking to produce the same before him as and when required. The Deputy Commissioner is, however, required to retain the photostat copy of the document before returning the document to the party.
5. In Sanjay Kumar v. The Sub-Registrar (1989 (2) Kant LJ 7), while explaining the object of Section 45-A of the Act and the powers of the respective authorities thereunder the Court has, inter alia, stated as follows :–
“Section 45-A of the Act uses the words ‘refer the same to the Deputy Commissioner’. This clearly means that the Sub-Registrar has the power to send the document held by him to the Deputy Commissioner along with the reference made by him. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 45-A of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner on such reference. He is required to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person concerned and has to pass orders regarding the market value of the property. If the Deputy Commissioner finds that the valuation furnished in the documents is correct, he is bound to return the document to the party along with his order. If he finds that the stamp paid is insufficient, he has the power to direct the party concerned to pay the difference and direct that the document be returned to the party after the deficiency is made up. Sub-section (5) of Sec. 45-A also provides for right of appeal to the District Judge”.
It cannot be disputed that on registration of the document the title in the property passes to the transferee without prejudice to the right of the State to recover any deficit Stamp Duty which may be found to be due on adjudication by the competent authority. Section 46 of the Act takes care of that situation under which the stamp duty found to be due under the relevant article of the Stamp Act may be recovered by the Deputy Commissioner by sale of the movable property of the person by whom the Stamp Duty is payable or by any other process, including recovery as arrears of Land Revenue. We do not see as to how an indefinite retention of the document without the adjudicating authority taking a decision can be justified in the absence of a specific provision in the Act or the Rules empowering the adjudicating authority to retain the document. However it cannot be disputed that for the purpose of adjudication the competent authority will have to look into the original document itself. Nonetheless it does not mean that such document can be retained by the adjudicating authority for an indefinite period. In the circumstances if a reasonable request is made the document may be returned to the holder of the document upon the party undertaking to produce the same if he is called upon to do so during the adjudicating proceeding. In that view of the matter, when an application is made in this behalf it appears to be just and proper to return the document to the party within a reasonable time, which may ordinarily not exceed six to eight weeks, on such reasonable terms and conditions as the adjudicating authority may consider proper. Similarly when the Sub-Registrar after registering the document has reason to believe that the property is under-valued, he is bound to make a reference to the Deputy Commissioner within such reasonable time. In that view of the matter, it is open for the Court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to direct return of the document on terms pending adjudication under S. 45-A of the Act. We therefore answer the question referred (supra) in the affirmative.
6. In the view we have taken above, we make the following order :–
In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner in Annexure-B, a direction is issued to the Deputy Commissioner to return the document to the petitioner subject to the condition that he shall produce the same before the Deputy Commissioner as and when required. The Deputy Commissioner is further directed to dispose of the adjudication proceedings expeditiously, and, in any event, within one month from the receipt of this order.
7. Order accordingly.