IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP No. 1014 of 2000(U)
1. THOMAS JOSEPH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIST. REGR., IDUKKI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Dated :11/01/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
-----------------------------------
O.P. No. 1014 of 2000
-------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram is
impleaded as additional 6th respondent in the original petition.
2. It is seen that large number of orders are issued by the
District Registrars demanding differential stamp duty without proper
adjudication. This is a clear violation of the proceedings
contemplated under Section 45B of the Stamp Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. All such demand notices, issued in violation of
the Act, are being cancelled by this Court and ordered
readjudication. It is seen that District Registrars are repeating the
same mistake. I feel, continued gross violation of the statutory
provisions and issuance of such orders should be seriously viewed
and exorbitant cost should be levied against the District Registrars
concerned.
3. The Inspector General of Registration, additional 6th
respondent impleaded herein, is therefore directed to issue a
circular to all the District Registrars directing them to strictly follow
the procedure under the statute and issue adjudication orders after
conducting an enquiry and based on the enquiry, communicate the
O.P.NO. 1014/2000
-2-
proposal for determination of market value and differential stamp
duty, and complete adjudication after giving an opportunity to the
party concerned to file written reply and hearing in the matter. This
circular should be communicated by the Inspector General of
Registration to the District Registrars. Thereafter, if orders of this
nature are issued by the District Registrars, this Court will impose
cost on the person concerned. If there is non-compliance of the
circular to be issued by the Inspector General of Registration as
above, disciplinary action also should be initiated. The circular
issued pursuant to this direction should be filed in this Court by the
Inspector General through the Advocate General within a period of
six weeks from now.
4. Since the impugned demand is raised without giving an
opportunity to hear the petitioner, this original petition is disposed
of directing 1st respondent to issue show cause notice stating the
market value he proposes to determine and the basis for the same
and then give an opportunity to petitioner to file written objection
and pass adjudication order after hearing him. Petitioner will
produce copy of the judgment and his present address before 1st
respondent for compliance. First respondent is directed to pass
O.P.NO. 1014/2000
-3-
fresh orders within a period of three months from now. All
proceedings for recovery will be kept in abeyance for four months
from now and thereafter recovery will be based on fresh
adjudication orders to be issued by 1st respondent as above. The
present order will be recalled as and when fresh orders are issued.
Learned Government Pleader will forward a copy of the
judgment to the Addl. 6th respondent, the Inspector General of
Registration, Thiruvananthapuram, for compliance.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)
jg