THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND ORS. versus K. BASKARAN

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 15-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
v.
K. BASKARAN
(Civil Appeal No. 2586 of 2020)
JUNE 15, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules, 1968: r.11-A – Whether the directions issued by
the appellate authority namely Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
(Inspector General of Registration) in asking the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration, or any other officer, to conduct the site
inspection, amounted to delegation of his functions and violated
r.11-A of the Rules and thereby vitiated the entire proceedings –
Held: r.11A empowers the appellate authority to call for any
information or record from any public office, officer or authority
or to examine and record statements from any member of the public
office or authority – In exercise of such power, if the appellate
authority calls for any information or calls for any record or any
inputs, that by itself, will not amount to delegation of essential
functions – If, in terms of such power, the appellate authority deputes
a responsible official to enquire into certain facets and calls for a
report, that would be an ordinary mode of exercise of power vested
in the appellate authority – So long as the essential function, that is
to say of considering all the necessary factors and inputs and
thereafter arriving at an informed decision is done by the appellate
authority, the burden of performing ancillary tasks need not be
shouldered by the appellate authority – Stamp Act, 1899.
Stamp Act, 1899: s.76-A – Submission that powers that can
be delegated are specifically provided under s.76-A of the Act, and
the power under s.47-A is not one such power; and unless the power
to sub-delegate is conferred expressly or impliedly under a statute,
the power cannot be sub-delegated – Held: Submission is completely
misplaced – s.76-A of the Principal Act enables the State Government
to delegate some of the statutory powers conferred upon it by the
Principal Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority – Such
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 345
345
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
empowerment has nothing to do with the legislative power exercised
by the State in terms of which s.47-A was inserted, or with the Rules
promulgated to effectuate s.47-A – For interpreting and considering
the context of s.47-A or the Rules, the fact that certain other statutory
powers in favour of the State Government are delegable, has
absolutely no relation – s.47-A was inserted by the State in its
legislative power and the Rules framed thereunder have to be
considered on their own and without being influenced by s.76-A of
the Act – Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules, 1968.
Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
Instruments) Rules, 1968: r.7 – Whether r.7 of the Rules prescribing
3 months’ time for the Collector to pass an order determining the
market value of the properties and duty payable on the instrument
from the first notice, is directory or mandatory – Held: Under sub-
section (1) of s.47-A of the Stamp Act, if there is reason to believe
that the market value has not been truly set forth in the Instrument
tendered for registration, a reference can be made to the Collector,
who (i) after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being
heard; and (ii) after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be
prescribed by Rules, has to determine the correct value of the
concerned property – The Section by itself does not lay down any
period within which the entire process is to be completed by the
Collector – It simply states that the enquiry be held in “such manner”
as may be prescribed by Rules – If the stipulation or fixation of
period of three months from the first notice in terms of r.6 or from
notice in Form II is taken to be mandatory, it would lead to a
situation of incongruity – The fact that Form II notice had been
issued, would mean that on a prima facie view of the record and
material, the value stated in the instrument was not the correct value;
which in turn would mean that prima facie the Government Coffers
were being denied the rightful dues – If for any reason, the
proceedings are not completed within three months and, therefore,
must be held to be vitiated, the public interest would suffer, and the
persons who were prime facie responsible for suppressing real value
would stand to gain – The amendment of r.7 incorporating th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.