{"id":34824,"date":"2011-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-10T21:49:16","modified_gmt":"2016-03-10T16:19:16","slug":"usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 17\/02\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nW.P(MD)No.8671 of 2005\n\nUsha Kanagasabapathy\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\nThe Joint Sub Registrar No.I,\nSub Registrars Office,\nKanyakumari at Nagercoil,\nNagercoil - 629 001.\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue\na Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order\nin No.2992\/05 dated 30.03.2005 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash\nthe same and direct the respondent to return the original sale deed dated\n13.03.2003 and registered as document No.800 of 2003 on the file of the\nrespondent herein without insisting any other stamp duty or other charges under\nSamadhan Scheme within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Subbiah\n^For Respondent ... Mr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate\n\n* * * * *\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the relief of
\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order in
\nNo.2992\/05 dated 30.03.2005 on the file of the respondent herein and to quash
\nthe same and direct the respondent to return the original sale deed dated
\n13.03.2003 and registered as document No.800 of 2003 on the file of the
\nrespondent herein without insisting any other stamp duty or other charges under
\nSamadhan Scheme within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The petitioner purchased the lands in S.No.P6\/22 in Nagercoil Village
\nmeasuring to an extent of 871.2 sq.ft as per the sale deed dated 13.03.2003 and
\nthe said deed has been registered as document No.800\/03 on 13.03.2003.  The
\nrespondent has retained the original sale deed dated 13.03.2003 in order to make
\na reference as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs.2,76,000\/-
\n(Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Six Thousand only). According to the respondent,
\nthe guideline value of the said land is Rs.4,08,579\/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eight
\nThousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine only)including the value of the building
\nand the passage.  The respondent is of the view that the sale deed dated
\n13.03.2003 carried a stamp duty of Rs.33,120\/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand One
\nHundred and Twenty only), but on the guideline value, it ought to have carried a
\nstamp duty of Rs.49,031\/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand and Thirty One only).
\nThere has been a deficit in the stamp duty payable at Rs.15,911\/- (Rupees
\nFifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eleven only) with corresponding registration
\ncharges of Rs.1,330\/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty only)
\naggregating a sum of Rs.17,291\/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and
\nNinety One only).\n<\/p>\n
\t4. A reference has been made by the respondent to the Special Deputy
\nCollector, Stamps, Tirunelvi, in his Serial No.166 dated 26.03.2003 and the
\nSpecial Deputy Collector, Stamps, Tirunelveli, by his Form No.1 dated 17.04.2003
\ncalled upon the petitioner to state her objections and the matter is still
\npending with him.  The Government in the meanwhile announced the Samadhan Scheme
\nwhereby if the purchaser opted to pay the 60% of the stamp duty demanded, by the
\nregistering authority, then the document can be released.  The announcement of
\nthe scheme has been widely published and it has been carried out in all News
\nPapers.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The petitioner by her letter dated 23.03.2005, has sent a sum of
\nRs.10,350\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) being the 60%
\namount on Rs.17,291\/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One
\nonly) by taking a banker’s cheque No.168\/2000132 dated 23.03.2005 in the name of
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The petitioner has disputed the demand for a sum of Rs.17,291\/- (Rupees
\nSeventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One only) made by the respondent as
\nper his memo in S.No.166 dated 26.03.2003 and this has been disputed by the
\npetitioner and it is the subject matter of reference as per Section 47-A of the
\nIndian Stamp Act, 1899.  The respondent by his notice dated 23.03.2005
\ndespatched on 23.03.2005 called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.14,852\/-
\n(Rupees Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two only) made up of the sum
\nof Rs.33,120\/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) on the
\nvalue of Rs.4,66,371\/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and
\nSeventy One only) as determined by him together with corresponding stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. For the letter dated 23.03.2005 sent by the petitioner  enclosing the
\nbanker’s cheque, the respondent through his letter No.2992\/05 dated 30.03.2005
\nhas informed the petitioner that the document has been returned by the Special
\nDeputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli to the respondent and at the time of
\nproceedings as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the building was
\nnot assessed and now, the building has been assessed and on that basis, it is
\nclaimed by the respondent that the total value of the property has been worked
\nout at Rs.4,66,371\/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and
\nSeventy One only) and that she has been requested to send a further sum of
\nRs.4,502\/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred and Two only).\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The petitioner after receipt of the letter dated 21.04.2005, sent a
\nreply through her advocate on 26.04.2005 inter alia stating that when the
\nreference has been made as per Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the value
\nof the building has been assessed at Rs.53,900\/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand
\nand Nine Hundred only) and by taking into account the value of the building, the
\nvalue of the property has been assessed at Rs.4,08,579\/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
\nEight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine only) and hence, there is no need
\nto pay any further amount by way of deficit stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The respondent after receipt of notice dated 26.04.2005, returned the
\ncheque dated 23.03.2005 through his letter dated 02.05.2005 on the ground that
\nshe has not paid the sum of Rs.4,502\/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred and
\nTwo only) as demanded.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The petitioner after receipt of the letter dated 02.05.2005 sent by
\nthe respondent, has returned back the cheque for a sum of Rs.10,315\/- (Rupees
\nTen Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen only) and made a request to the
\nrespondent to return the original document through lawyer’s notice dated
\n04.05.2005, but the respondent has refused to release the document which is not
\na legal one.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not known
\nas to how the respondent can value the property differently at Rs.4,66,371\/-
\n(Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy One only) from
\nRs.4,08,579\/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Nine
\nonly) as originally determined as per Serial No.166\/2003 dated 26.03.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent in
\nthe memo dated 26.03.2003 has clearly specified the value of the property
\nconveyed at Rs.4,08,579\/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eight Thousand Five Hundred and
\nSeventy Nine only) under the document No.800\/03 dated 13.03.2003, after taking
\ninto account the value of the building at Rs.53,900\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the argument that
\nthere is no provision either under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, or the Rules
\nframes thereunder to enable the Registering Authority to revise the value of the
\nproperty even after sending the document for reference as per Section 47-A of
\nthe Indian Stamp Act.  Also, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
\npetitioner that the respondent having made a demand through his memo dated
\n26.03.2003 calling upon the petitioner to pay a stamp duty of Rs.15,911\/-
\n(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eleven only) together with Rs.1,330\/-
\n(Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty only) corresponding registration
\ncharges, has no jurisdiction to demand any further sum on any ground.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Lastly, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
\nthat the respondent cannot retain the original document with him, whether he
\nrefers it under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act or not and in view of
\nthe payment of Rs.10,350\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) as
\nper Samadhan Scheme which precludes the respondent from referring the document
\nas per Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the
\nsale deed dated 13.03.2003 has been referred to the Stamp Deputy Collector,
\nTirunelveli and prima facie the guideline value has not been adopted for the
\nground and hence, a preliminary reference has been made to the Stamp Deputy
\nCollector in regard to the under-valuation as regards the site alone.  Moreover,
\nthe Stamp Duty Collector has been requested to make an inspection of the
\nbuilding at the time of determination of the market value of the property.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent contends that the
\nvalue of the building located at the site has been valued by the department and
\nthere is a specific reference in the report that the building has not been
\ninspected which implies that the Stamp Duty Collector  has to make the
\ndetermination of the value of the building. Expatiating his submissions, the
\nlearned Government Advocate for the respondent proceeds to project an argument
\nthat the petitioner sent the banker’s cheque for a sum of Rs.17,241\/- (Rupees
\nSeventeen Thousand Two Hundred and Forty One only) which is less than the
\npreliminary value of the building and that the deficit duty mentioned in the
\nletter No.166 dated 26.03.2003 is a preliminary one and it is not final. In
\nshort, at the time of issuance of letter dated 26.03.2003, the value of the
\nbuilding has not been assessed.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent vehemently contends
\nthat as per the letter of the Inspector General of Registration in Letter
\nNo.12342\/U1\/95, dated 07.03.1995, if the value of the building is Rs.25,000\/-
\nand above, then it has to be compulsorily inspected by the Officers of the
\nDepartment so as to check the evasion of stamp duty.  Even in the letter of the
\nInspector General of Registration in Letter No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004
\nwhich followed the Samadhan Scheme and it has been issued as guideline for the
\nimplementation of Samadhan Scheme and the buildings have to be inspected by the
\nSub Registrar and the deficit duty has to be determined.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent brings it to the
\nnotice of this Court that the building located in the site has been inspected by
\nthe authority on 23.03.2005 in the presence of one Kanaga Sabapathy, the husband
\nof the petitioner and the value for the property has been determined at
\nRs.4,66,371\/- and on that basis, the deficit value of the stamp duty has been
\ndetermined at Rs.22,848\/-.  As such, 60% of the stamp duty amount comes to
\nRs.13,709\/- and Rs.1,143\/- aggregating in all a sum of Rs.14,852\/- has been
\ndemanded from the petitioner as per letter No.166, dated 22.03.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that as per
\nthe existing order, the value of the building referred to the Deputy Collector
\n(Stamps), is to be determined by the Deputy Collector (Stamps) and also that the
\nSamadhan Scheme has come to an end on 30.04.2005.    Indeed, the petitioner has
\nnot availed the Samadhan Scheme by paying the additional duty demanded and as
\nsuch, the cheque has been returned to her through the Office letter
\nNo.2992\/U4\/2005, dated 06.05.2005 and if the petitioner has not availed the
\nopportunity to remit the amount as per Samadhan Scheme.  Since the Samadhan
\nScheme has come to an end on 30.04.2005, the sale deed has been sent back to the
\nDeputy Collector (Stamps) for further action.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. As per the Samadhan Scheme, in G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes
\nDepartment dated 27.12.2004, remission of 40% of the difference of duty
\nchargeable on the sale of the properties as proposed by the Registering Officer
\nand the duty already paid, has been ordered.  The main object of introducing the
\nSamadhan Scheme is to unlock the blocked revenue to the Government as per the
\nletter of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, in No.29709\/C2\/04,
\ndated 15.06.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In the said G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated
\n27.12.2004, in paragraphs 2 to 4, it is mentioned as follows:
\n\t“2. According to the Inspector General of Registration, 46208 Documents
\nare pending with District Revenue Officer (Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collectors
\n(Stamps) for determination of market value as on 30.11.2004.  On account of
\nthis, revenue by way of stamp duty amounting to crores of rupees due to the
\nGovernment remain uncollected. In view of the present financial difficulty, it
\nis practically not possible to appoint additional staff to speed up the work of
\ndetermination of market value of properties. In the above circumstances, the
\nInspector General of Registration has proposed to implement a Samadhan Scheme
\nsuggesting a remission of 40% of the difference of stamp duty between what is
\nchargeable on the value of the property as proposed by the registering officer
\nand the duty already paid, in order to unlock the blocked revenue to the
\nGovernment in his letter 3rd read above.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The Government after careful examination have decided to accept the
\nproposal of the Inspector General of Registration. Accordingly, they direct that
\n40% (Forty percent) of the difference of stamp duty between the duty already
\npaid and what is chargeable on the value of the properties (both for land and
\nbuildings including chargeable assets) as proposed by the registering officer on
\nthe basis of Guideline Register in respect of land and the PWD Schedule of Rates
\nin respect of buildings, be remitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The Government issue the following instructions in this regard:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Documents referred to the District Revenue Officer(Stamps)\/Special
\nDeputy Collector (Stamps) under Sections 47-A(a), 47-A(3) and 19-B(4) of the
\nIndian Stamp Act, 1899 and pending with them for determination of market value
\nas on 30.11.2004 and the documents registered and pending with the registering
\nofficers on the above said date for referring to the District Revenue Officer
\n(Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) for determination of market value are
\neligible for availing the concession under the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The stamp duty and the registration fee payable under the scheme
\nshall be collected in the registering office itself.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The scheme will not be applicable to cases pending for recovery of
\narrears under the Revenue Recovery Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) The scheme shall be implemented for three months from the date of
\nnotification.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. On behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu, Registration Department,
\nthe Inspector General of Registration, has among other things stated under the
\ncaption ‘SAMADHAN SCHEME’ thus:\n<\/p>\n
“Pay 60% of the difference of stamp duty & Registration Fee payable as assessed
\nby the Sub Registrar and the Stamp duty\/Registration Fee already paid by you
\nThere will be no enquiry, inspection etc., Documents will be returned across the
\ncounter. Special Counters opened in all the Sub Registrar Officers.
\nPayment may be made by Cash\/D.D\/Challan.\n<\/p>\n
This Scheme will be in force from 28.12.2004 to 27.03.2005.
\nIt will not be extended further.\n<\/p>\n
Sd.\/-\n<\/p>\n
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
\nCHENNAI 28.”\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The Joint Registrar, Kanyakumari, at Nagercoil, in the notice under
\nthe Samadhan Scheme dated 22.03.2005 has stated that in the stamp duty payable
\nin respect of the property, out of the amount paid as stamp duty in the
\ndocument, in the balance stamp duty paid, 60% can be remitted together with 60%
\nregistration charges and an individual is to take back the documents.  Further,
\nin the said notice, the value mentioned in the document is stated as
\nRs.2,76,000\/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Six Thousand only) and the Sub
\nRegistrar’s value is Rs.4,66,371\/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Three
\nHundred and Seventy One only).  Further, the stamp duty to be paid is
\nRs.55,968\/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight only) and
\nthe stamp duty paid is Rs.33,120\/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred and
\nTwenty only).  Moreover, the difference in the stamp duty is Rs.22,848\/- (Rupees
\nTwenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Eight only) and the difference in
\nthe registration charges to be paid is Rs.1,905\/-.  Now, out of this amount, as
\nper the Samadhan Scheme, 60% stamp duty to be paid is Rs.13,709\/- (Rupees
\nThirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine only) and the 60% registration charges
\ncomes to Rs.1,143\/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Three only).\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Thus, the petitioner is to pay a sum of Rs.14,852\/- (Rupees Fourteen
\nThousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Two only) which has to be paid as per the
\nSamadhan Scheme which is available from 28.12.2004 to 27.03.2005, but the
\npetitioner has stated in her letter dated 23.03.2005 addressed to the Joint Sub
\nRegistrar – I, Nagercoil that ‘Your office have informed me as well as to the
\nSpecial Thasildar (stamps) that I have to pay Rs.15,911\/- towards deficit stamps
\nand Rs.1330\/- as Registration charges. Now as per the ‘rkhjhd; jpl;lk;’ I have
\nto pay Rs.10,350\/- as 60% of the total amount of Rs.17,291\/- I am sending the
\nsaid amount as Demand Draft\/bankers cheque (crossed) of Karur Vaishiya Bank,
\nNagercoil.’<\/p>\n
\t25. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the Joint
\nRegistrar, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, has sent a communication in Reference
\nNo.2992\/05 dated 30.03.2005 addressed to the petitioner stating that the
\npetitioner has only sent a sum of Rs.10,350\/- by means of cheque on 23.03.2005
\nand that the balance of Rs.4,502\/- has to be paid by her which can be paid by
\nher in the Office and to take back the documents.  The said communication is
\nsaid to have been received by the petitioner on 05.04.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. Interestingly, in G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated
\n27.12.2004, it is clearly inter alia stated thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“… It is reported to the Government that the number of documents
\nreferred to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collector
\n(Stamps) has been increasing every year.  However, disposal of such documents by
\nthe District Revenue Officer (Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) is not
\nkeeping pace with the receipt of the documents.  Consequently, revenue due to
\nthe State running into crores of rupees are getting blocked.  The public are
\nalso put to inconvenience, being unable to get the original documents. In order
\nto obviate the situation, a Samadhan Scheme was implemented in the State in the
\nyears 1999 and 2002.”\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In paragraph 3 of the aforesaid G.O, it is mentioned that ‘the
\nGovernment after careful examination have decided to accept the proposal of the
\nInspector General of Registration. Accordingly, they direct that 40% (Forty
\npercent) of the difference of stamp duty between the duty already paid and what
\nis chargeable on the value of the properties (both for land and buildings
\nincluding chargeable assets) as proposed by the registering officer on the basis
\nof Guideline Register in respect of land and the PWD Schedule of Rates in
\nrespect of buildings, be remitted.’\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Therefore, it is quite candidly clear from the tenor of G.O.Ms.No.193
\nCommercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004, that a remission of 40% of the
\ndifference of stamp duty between what is chargeable under the value of the
\nproperty as proposed by the Registering Officer and the duty already paid, has
\nbeen accepted by the Government and a direction to pay 40% of the difference of
\nstamp duty already paid on the value of the property, etc., has been ordered by
\nthe Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. But, the respondent takes umbrage as per the letter of the Inspector
\nGeneral of Registration in   No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004 which followed
\nthe Samadhan Scheme and it has issued a guideline for the implementation of the
\nSamadhan Scheme in and by which the buildings which ought to be inspected, have
\nto be inspected by the Sub Registrar to the deficit duty to be fixed
\naccordingly.  Therefore, according to the respondent, the building of the
\npetitioner located has been inspected by the authority of the respondent
\nDepartment on 23.03.2005 in the presence of the petitioner’s husband.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. A reading of the circular No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004, issued
\nby the Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai – 28, shows that
\nthe Samadhan Scheme will apply to the buildings and the building where spot
\ninspection has been completed and it covers the documents where the value has
\nbeen shown less and this concession will have to be given the difference in
\nvalue of the spot inspection and the value of the building mentioned in the
\ndocument.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. The letter of the Inspector General of Registration dated 27.12.2004,
\nhas been issued in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department
\ndated 27.12.2004.  Even though the respondent relies on the letter of the
\nInspector General of Registration in No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004, for the
\nimplementation of the Samadhan Scheme, the building should be inspected by the
\nSub Registrar after the duty should be fixed accordingly.  In G.O.Ms.No.193
\nCommercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004, paragraph 4 shows that the
\nGovernment has issued instructions to the effect that the documents referred to
\nthe District Revenue Officer(Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) under
\nSections 47-A(a), 47-A(3) and 19-B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and pending
\nwith them for determination of market value as on 30.11.2004 and the documents
\nregistered and pending with the registering officers on the above said date for
\nreferring to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps)\/Special Deputy Collector
\n(Stamps) for determination of market value are eligible for availing the
\nconcession under the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. When the G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004
\nhas been issued with a view to obviate the situation of inconvenience being put
\nto public who are unable to get the original documents and earlier, the Samadhan
\nScheme has been implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu in the years 1999 and
\n2002, then it is not open to the respondent to rely upon the letter of the
\nInspector General of Registration in No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004 and take
\na plea that as per the guidelines issued in regard to the implementation of
\nSamadhan Scheme, the building has been inspected by the Sub Registrar in regard
\nto the payment of deficit duty insofar as the petitioner is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. At this stage, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the building has
\nbeen inspected by the authority of the Department on 23.03.2005, of course, in
\nthe presence of the husband of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. A careful perusal of the contents of the letter of the Inspector
\nGeneral of the Registration dated 27.12.2004 only points out that the Samadhan
\nScheme will apply to the buildings and the completion of inspection in respect
\nof the building where the documents relate to less value of deficit stamp duty
\ndocuments, etc. But, G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004,
\nrefers to the factum of remission of 40% of the difference of duty chargeable on
\nthe sale of the properties as proposed by the Registering Officer and the duty
\nalready paid and as per paragraph 4(i) of the aforesaid G.O., it will also apply
\nto the case of a document pending for determination of market value as on
\n30.11.2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. In the instant case, the petitioner’s sale deed is dated 13.03.2003
\nand therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.193
\nCommercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004 and the respondent cannot take
\nshelter or umbrage under the letter of the Inspector General of Registration in
\nNo.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. As on the date of the letter of the Inspector General of Registration
\nin No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004, admittedly the inspection of the property
\nof the petitioner has not been made by any authority of the respondent.  So, the
\nletter at best refers that the Samadhan Scheme will apply to the buildings and
\nthe building where spot inspection has been completed.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. In strict sense of term, the  letter of the Inspector General of
\nRegistration in No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004, may not apply to the
\npetitioner’s case where admittedly spot inspection of the site has been made on
\n23.03.2005, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. The object for which G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated
\n27.12.2004 has been introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu pertaining to the
\nSamadhan Scheme will certainly prevail over the letter of the Inspector General
\nof Registration in No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated 27.12.2004. To put it differently,
\nthe letter of the Inspector General of Registration in No.29704\/E2\/2004, dated
\n27.12.2004, said to be following the Samadhan Scheme which has purportedly
\nissued the guidelines in respect of the Samadhan Scheme in and by which the
\nbuilding has to be inspected, cannot override the G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes
\nDepartment dated 27.12.2004 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu with an
\navowed object.  Therefore, the announcement has been made by the Inspector
\nGeneral of Registration, Chennai – 28, on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu
\nunder the Samadhan Scheme that there will be no enquiry, inspection etc., and
\nthe documents will be returned across the counter and also there is an
\nindication that special counters have been opened in all the Sub Registrar
\nOffices and the payment has been requested to be made by Cash\/D.D\/Challan with
\nan intimation that the said Scheme will be in force from 28.12.2004 to
\n27.03.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the petitioner is entitled
\nto get the benefit of  G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department dated
\n27.12.2004 and also the petitioner is entitled to derive benefit under the
\nSamadhan Scheme in respect of the sale deed dated 13.03.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to make fresh demand on
\nthe petitioner by adhering to the G.O.Ms.No.193 Commercial Taxes Department
\ndated 27.12.2004 and as per the tenor and spirit of the Samadhan Scheme that has
\nbeen in force for the period from 28.12.2004 to 27.03.2005 without inspection of
\nthe site within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
\norder and on receipt of the said demand notice from the respondent, the
\npetitioner is given two weeks time to pay the amount mentioned in the said
\ndemand either by way of cash or demand draft and thereafter, on receipt of the
\nsame, the respondent is directed to return the document concerned within a
\nperiod of ten days therefrom to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. In the result, this writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to
\nbear their own costs.  Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the respondent
\nin No.2992\/05 dated 30.03.2005 is set aside so as to give a complete quietus to
\nthe controversies involved between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Joint Sub Registrar No.I,
\nSub Registrars Office,
\nKanyakumari at Nagercoil,
\nNagercoil – 629 001.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17\/02\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.8671 of 2005 Usha Kanagasabapathy … Petitioner Vs. The Joint Sub Registrar No.I, Sub Registrars Office, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, Nagercoil – 629 001. … Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUsha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4270,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011"},"wordCount":4270,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011","name":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T16:19:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/usha-kanagasabapathy-vs-the-joint-sub-registrar-no-i-on-17-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Usha Kanagasabapathy vs The Joint Sub Registrar No.I on 17 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}