The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has booked a sub-registrar on the charge of causing an estimated revenue loss to the tune of several thousands of crores of rupees to the State exchequer.
The case pertains to the registration of three documents at the Tiruttani Sub-Registrar Office in Tiruvallur district on November 29, 2019, involving representatives of D.D. Educational and Health Trust and D.D. Medical and Educational Trust. The value of the three properties was given as ₹5,61,600 crore. The allegation is that the sub-registrar, instead of levying 11% in Stamp and Registration Fee on the given value of the property, registered the documents as a settlement deed and charged a mere ₹29,000 for each transaction.
According to the First Information Report, the DVAC accused sub-registrar M. Selvakumaran, now under suspension, of abusing his official position in registering the properties “by violating the rules and registration laws laid down by the Registration Department for causing a wrongful gain to the educational trust and a huge loss to the government exchequer”. The agency has named T.D. Naidu of D.D. Educational and Health Trust and Tataji of D.D. Medical and Educational Trust as accused.
The FIR stated that three properties — 21.57 acres situated in the jurisdiction of Thiruvalangadu Sub-Registrar Office and 0.12 cents in the Tiruttani Sub-Registrar Office valued at ₹2,43,000 crore; 6.12 acres in the Thiruvalangadu Sub-Registrar Office and 0.10 cents in the Tiruttani Sub-Registrar Office valued at ₹72,900 crore; and 22.17 acres in the Thiruvalangadu Sub-Registrar Office and 0.10 cents in the Tiruttani Sub-Registrar Office valued at ₹2,45,700 crore — were registered as a settlement deed with Mr. Naidu as the executant and Mr. Tataji as the claimant.
Facts not ascertained
Investigators said that going by a circular issued by the Inspector-General of Registration in 2011, the sub-registrar should have kept the three documents pending and written to his counterpart at Thiruvalangadu to ascertain whether the properties were ‘poromboke’ and whether there was any order of attachment or any order restraining registration of documents issued by any court.
Since a part of the property transacted belonged to Kalamammal and she had died on February 2, 2012, the registering officer should have obtained her death certificate and legal heirship certificate in order to ascertain how the executant derived the title over the property. If such certificates were not produced, the documents presented for registration should have been returned to the applicant.
Explaining how the revenue loss occurred, the DVAC said the properties were settled by the trustee of one trust to the trustee of another trust. “When the relationship between the parties has not been stated in the subject document, there is no locus standi for the registering officer to treat these documents as settlement in favour of family members under Article 58(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual of the Registration Department.”
Huge loss
Under the provisions of Article 58(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual, in case of any instrument of settlement in favour of a family member, the Stamp Fee should be paid at the rate of ₹1 for every ₹100 of the market value or the maximum of ₹25,000 with the Registration Fee. “In this case, the documents were registered between two trusts and not within family members. These three documents should have been registered with normal Stamp Duty and Registration Fee as a sale deed.
The DVAC said the documents should have been registered in light of Article 58(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual of the Registration Department which prescribed 7% Stamp Fee and 4% Registration Fee, which meant a total of 11% of the value of the documents (approximately ₹61,776 crore).
However, the accused officer treated the documents as a settlement deed and collected ₹29,000 for each of the three documents, thereby causing a huge loss to the government.
The executant mentioned an abnormal value of the properties in the documents that were registered on the date of presentation without clarifying any details, the DVAC said, invoking the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.
