The Hindu: Chennai: Monday, August 14, 2017.
A senior
citizen who was forced to pay an excess stamp duty at the time of registering a
property was awarded compensation by the Tamil Nadu State Information
Commission (TNSIC), even after the Registration Department maintained that
there was no provision to refund the extra fee levied. The commission held that
records of dispatch produced by the registering authority appeared suspicious,
and upheld the contention of the petitioner that there was no reply to his
petition seeking clarification under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The case
arises out of an appeal made by A. Ranganathan of Kundrathur, stating that the
Sub-Registrar’s office had levied excess stamp duty to the tune of ₹13,300 for
a registration done in May 2015, and that there was no reply to his petitions
seeking details of the same under the RTI Act. Since there was no response from
the first appellate authority in the Registration Department, he moved the
TNSIC.
During the
inquiry, the Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that a reply was sent
within a month, but the petitioner denied having received any such
communication. Although a copy of the dispatch register was produced in support
of the claim that the reply was sent, the commission found that the entries
appeared to be neither contemporaneous nor genuine.
On
information that Mr. Ranganathan had moved the TNSIC, the authorities met him
in-person and handed over a reply. After he refused to accept the reply, they
sent a copy by registered post barely three days before the matter came up for
inquiry.
‘No scope
for refund’
It was seen
from the records that the levy of stamp duty was excessive to the tune of ₹13,300,
but the petitioner was informed that the amount could not be refunded since he
had consented to making the payment under Section 41 of the Registration Act.
The PIO reiterated during the inquiry that there was no provision to return the
excess amount in these circumstances, and only departmental action could be taken
against the official concerned.
Mr.
Ranganathan represented that he was constrained to make the payment since he
was told the document would not be registered otherwise. He further represented
that he is 70 years old, illiterate and a heart patient, and the delay in
getting the reply had caused him stress.
Taking these
factors into account, and the fact that he attended the inquiry with the
assistance of his son-in-law, State Chief Information Commissioner K. Ramanujam
directed the authorities to pay compensation of ₹15,000 for the detriment
caused to the septuagenarian by the delay in replying to his petition under the
RTI Act. A decision on recovering the amount of compensation from the official
responsible for dereliction of duty could be taken by the Inspector-General of
Registrations.
.JPG)
.JPG)
