S.Manoharan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2010

Madras High Court

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATE: 23/11/2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition (MD) No.13452 of 2010

S.Manoharan .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by Special Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes (J-1) Department,

Secretariat,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.Inspector General of Registration, Chennai - 600 028.

3.The District Registrar,

Tiruchy District,

Tiruchirappalli - 620 001. .. Respondents

Prayer

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the third respondent from demanding additional stamp duty for the document of sale, dated 08.05.2009, bearing Registration No.2603/2009 executed by Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited in favour of the petitioner and further direct the respondents to deliver the Sale Deed, dated 08.05.2009, registered as document No.2603/2009 to the petitioner.

!For Petitioner ... M/s.A.Saravana Kumar ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Manoharan

Government Advocate

:ORDER

Heard Mr.A.Saravana Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as Mr.R.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the issue arising for the consideration in the present writ petition had already been decided by this Court, in a batch of writ petitions, in S.Jayalakshmi V. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 2003-1-L.W. 562. Thereafter, this Court has been passing a number of orders based on the order passed by this Court in the decision cited above. The learned counsel had also enclosed one such order, dated 20.03.2006, made in W.P.(MD) No.2351 of 2006, in the typed set of papers, filed along with the writ petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents had not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, the third respondent is directed to release the sale deed, dated 08.05.2009, which had already been registered as document No.2603/2009, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without demanding additional stamp duty, if there are no other legal impediments for the release of the document concerned.

4. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.

srm