w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu v/s Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others

    W.P.No. 30290 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011

    Decided On, 04 June 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras


    For the Petitioner: Sathiya Seelan, T.N. Murali Moghan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1 to R5, P.P. Purushothaman, Government Pleader, R6 to R9, P.J. Rishikesh, Advocate.

Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned notice dated 18.11.2011 passed by the 5th respondent in respect to the sale deed document no.1578 of 2006 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct to issue fresh notice for payment of stamp duty after fixing the guideline value in accordance to the Samadhan Scheme.)

Heard Mr.Sathiya Seelan for Mr.T.N.Muralimoghan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

2. The petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the 5th respondent intimating the petitioner to avail the benefit of Samathan Scheme introduced by the Government for the purpose of benefit of payment of deficit stamp duty in respect of the pending document no.1578 / 2006 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Neelankarai.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the period when the Samathan Scheme was invoked, the petitioner has given a representation stating that guideline value of the property should not have been reckoned by taking frontage, as it is in old mahalibalipuram road, but the value of Thirumalaipillai street should have been taken, which is only Rs.254/-.

4. It appears that there is a dispute with regard to the ownership between the petitioner and the 6th respondent and it is stated that the matter has been ended in favour of the 6th respondent in the second appeal before this Court. However, the petitioner is stated to have filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

5. Be that as it may, the present impugned order is only a notice informing about the availability of Samathan Scheme, which was in vouge from 01.11.2011 to 31.01.2012. Thus, the impugned notice does not any longer survive because the period for which it was issued has expired. Therefore, the impugned notice has worked itself out and has become unenforceable.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 5, on oral instructions, would submit that the 4th respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act and the order has been passed, however, there is nothing on record to show such order and neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9 are aware of the same.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9 submitted that the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest over the property in question.

8. In any event, this Court is not adjudicating into the rights of the petitioner, viz., Chennai Gartech Ltd., Chennai or respondents 6 to 9 or vice versa and it is concerned only about the validity of the impugned notice. As mentioned above, the impugned notice has worked its

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

elf out due to efflux of time, therefore, becomes unenforceable as on date. 9. With this clarification, the Writ Petition stands disposed of and it is left open to the petitioner and the 6th respondent to work out their rights in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.