IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36206 of 2008(I)
1. K.K.KURIAKOSE, JOINT SUB REGISTRAR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRISSUR.
5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E),
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/04/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 6th April,2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner retired from service as Joint Sub
Registrar on 2006. At that point of time he was working in
the Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur. As per Exhibit-P1
pensionary benefits have been sanctioned to him including
the DCRG and Commuted Value of Pension. Presently, he
is aggrieved by the fixation of liability against him on
various counts. Initially, he was directed to remit an amount
of Rs.4,64,357/- towards short levy of stamp duty and
Rs.1,58,726/- towards short levy of registration fee as per
Exhibit-P3. This is on the basis of the notifications
published in the Kerala Gazette Extra-ordinary dated
5.1.2004 fixing the fair value for land in the State. The
same along with a letter is produced as Exhibit-P5.
According to the petitioner, it was communicated to the
office of the petitioner only on 15.1.2004 at 11.30 a.m. as
evident from the endorsement therein.
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
2
2. The petitioner therefore submitted an appropriate
representation objecting to the proposal, wherein, he has
explained that Exhibit-P5 notification fixing the fair value
was received in the Sub Registrar’s Office only on 15.1.2004.
The alleged liability consequent on the registration of
Document Nos. 209/04 to 323/04 have been disputed by the
petitioner. Exhibit-P9 is the liability certificate wherein, the
total liability is shown as Rs.7,75,735/-. As regards certain
other items, objections are yet to be finalised. In this writ
petition, the issue relates only to Item 4 in Exhibit -P9.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd
respondent, the stand taken is that during the period from
5.1.2004 to 18.2.2004, the loss sustained to the Government
on stamp duty and registration fee due to the registration of
the documents without considering the fair value was pointed
out by the Public Accounts Committee Report of the
Comptroller and Auditor General for the year ended
31.3,2006. The Government directed the 2nd respondent, the
Inspector General of Registration to report the remedial
action taken in the matter. Accordingly all the details from
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
3
various Districts were collected and total loss of
Rs.6,60,09,281/- was assessed.
4. Accordingly, the Government directed to initiate a
remedial action in the matter and as against the petitioner a
liability for an amount of Rs.4,64,357/ towards short levy of
stamp duty and Rs.1,58,726/- towards short levy of
registration fee was assessed as per Exhibit-P3. It is pointed
out that the petitioner has caused great revenue loss to the
Government Exchequer since documents were registered
without noting the fair value as per the Gazette Notification.
5. A reference to Exhibit-P5 will reveal the following
facts. Exhibit-P5 is the letter dated 8.1.2004, being the letter
from the Director of Printing & Stationery forwarding a copy
of notification dated 5.1.2004. It is received in the office of
the District Registrar General, Thrissur, as evident from the
endorsement, on 12.1.2004. Thereafter, it is received in the
office of the Sub Registrar only on 15.1.2004 at 11.30 a.m.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a
Full Bench decision of this Court in R.K.V. Motors & Timbers
(P) Ltd Vs. R.T.O [1982 KLT 166) to contend for the position
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
4
that unless the contents of the notification are supplied to
the notice of the concerned authorities, it cannot be said that
he had knowledge about the same. It was held therein that
“the necessity that the people affected by law should have
sufficient knowledge of the law, had been accepted as a
basic tenet and inextricable characteristic of law even by
legal theoreticians and jurisprudentialists. Adequate
publicity to those from whom law expects obedience thereto
has been held as a basic requirement of the law itself. The
State has an obligation to speak or to make known a rule, so
that it could answer the description of law.”
7. In the light of the above legal position, the stand
taken by the respondents cannot be accepted going by the
details in Exhibit-P5. Exhibit-P5 notification was
communicated to the office of the Sub Registrar only on
15.1.2004 at 11.30 a.m. This is not disputed at all. In that
view of the matter, the fixation of liability against the
petitioner towards short levy of stamp duty and registration
fee in respect of document No. 209/04 to 323/04 which were
registered during the period from 5.1.2004 to 15.1.2004 is
not correct.
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
5
7. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it is
submitted that Document Nos. 361/04 to 971/04 (7
documents) were registered after 11.30 a.m. on 15.1.2004
and on subsequent dates. Regarding those documents, the
petitioner has already given an explanation regarding the
short levy of stamp duty and registration fee.
8. In the light of the above, the matter has to be
reconsidered by the respondents. The petitioner cannot be
saddled with liability in respect of short levy of stamp duty and
registration fee as pointed out above in respect of Document
Nos.209/04 to 323/04. Therefore, the liability certificates will
be revised accordingly by the 2nd respondent and fresh
proceedings will be issued within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner
will be free to pursue his objections regarding fixation of
other items of liabilities.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
6
W.P ( C) No.36206 of 2008
7