JUDGMENT
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. A document has been registered in the name of the petitioner in the Sub-Registrar Office, Edappally. But that document is not, soon after registration, returned to the petitioner in tune with the provisions contained in Section 61 of the Registration Act. Section 61 of the Act provides that soon after registration is completed, the Registrar shall return the document to the person in whose favour the document is registered. Instead the Sub-Registrar, finding that there is reason to believe that the valuation shown in the document is far below the value of the property covered by the instrument, referred this instrument to the Collector to proceed under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act. The power of the Collector is conferred in the second respondent, District Registrar for initiating proceedings under Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act. There is no reason to send the document to the Collector. Only a copy need be send. Original has to be returned to the party as mandated by Section 61 of the Registration Act. It is stated in Ext. P2, the petitioner submits, that the Sub-Registrar had referred the instrument to the District Registrar in tune with a direction issued by the Secretary to Government, Registration Department.
2. The Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar, acting in their respective spheres, are statutory authorities. They are not bound by any direction of a Secretary to the department concerned. That is beyond the
power conferred on the Secretary and such directions need not be considered by the statutory authorities while registering a document or while referring the proceedings or while considering whether there is under valuation or not. Therefore that direction is also improper, the petitioner submits. It is further submitted by the petitioner based on Rule 4 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation) Rules that only a statement in form No. 1 -A alone need accompany the reference by the Sub-Registrar to the District Registrar. It is further submitted by the petitioner that it is insisted in Rule 9 of the said rules that an appeal filed by a person aggrieved by the proceedings under Rule 45B shall accompany the original of the instrument or a certified copy thereof. It is thus clear that what is meant by the statutory provision is that the instrument shall always be in the possession of the incumbent concerned. Therefore there is no reason for the Sub-Registrar to refer the instrument to the District Registrar, who shall proceed under Section 45-B of the Kerala Stamp Act.
3. I am totally unable to accept these contentions raised by the petitioner. Section 45B (1) is the relevant provision which reads as follows :
“If the registering officer, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be and the proper duty payable thereon.”
So the Sub-Registrar has to refer something. What is it? The Sub-Registrar shall after registering such instrument refer the same. The word ‘same’ is a relative concept qualifying the instrument. Therefore what has to be referred as denoted by the word ‘same’ is nothing but the instrument itself. Therefore the Registrar shall, always, when he has reason to believe that there is undervaluation, refer the instrument, to the Collector. Thus the instrument has to be referred to the District Collector as per Section 45B (1). So the petitioner cannot escape from the clutches of the provision.
4. Of course Section 61 of the Registration Act stipulates that soon after completion of the registration, the Registrar shall return the document to the concerned party. Compliance of such provision presupposes compliance of all the formalities for registration of the conveyance of an immovable property. Conveyance of an immovable property is covered not only by the Registration Act, but also by the Transfer of Property Act as well as the Stamp Act. In such circumstance, the return of document soon after completion of registration as provided for in Section 61 of the Registration Act is after compliance of all the statutory formalities as by law required. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, provisions in the Registration Act and the provisions in the Stamp Act have to be operated simultaneously in their respective field with reference to transfer of a property. Therefore these have to be simultaneously complied with. The return of document in terms of Section 61 of the Registration Act presupposes compliance of all the other statutory formalities that are necessary to complete the conveyance of property by means of registering document which requires payment of stamp duty and registration fee. Therefore when statutory authority empowered to register the document as per the provisions in the Registration Act has reason to believe that such instrument is under valued, he shall always refer the same to the Collector. That power also is conferred on the Registrar himself because of due empowerment. Therefore the document can be referred to the District Registrar notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 61 of the Registration Act.
5. Of course, as contended by the petitioner, Rule 4 dealing with the proceedings on reference provides that the reference shall be accompanied by a statement in form No. 1 A. Apart from the statement in form No. 1 A, there shall be reference and reference is reference of the instrument itself, as already found above. Therefore Rule 4 does not in any way improve his case.
5A. Of course as contended by the petitioner Rule 9 of the said rules also provides that an incumbent filing an appeal against an order passed under Section 45 B of the Stamp Act shall produce the original or certified copy of the instrument. That is because
soon after the proceedings under Section 45 B are completed the Collector or District Registrar is supposed to return the instrument to the party concerned. It is then alone the petitioner can prefer an appeal, Moreover the incumbent can produce a certified copy. A certified copy is not based on the original of the document in the stamp paper which shall be normally in the possession of the concerned party. Certified copy will be issued by the Sub-Registry concerned based on the document in the respective register kept in the Registrar’s office as the original document will always be in the hands of the party concerned. Therefore that contention also does not have any merit.
6. Of course the petitioner is well footed in contending that the statutory authorities are not liable to comply with the directions issued by the executive officers while exercising their power under the statute. While examining Section 45 B of the Kerala Stamp! Act, I have already held that the Sub-Registrar shall always refer the document to the, District Registrar, if he has reason to believe that the instrument is under-valued, for appropriate action. In such circumstance, if an officer of the Government while issuing circular recites about the provisions in the statute and direct due compliance thereof, it cannot be said to be illegal.
7. Thus the petitioner cannot seek a direction to deliver the document to him, so long as proceedings under Section 45 B are pending.
8. At the same time, the proceedings under Section 45 B cannot be prolonged and the document cannot be denied even if any proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner. The first respondent shall, with due notice to the petitioner, complete it, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and on passing of the final order, the document shall be delivered to the petitioner.
Original Petition is disposed of as above.