IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 14374 of 2021

With

CAN 1 of 2025

With

CAN 2 of 2025

M/s. P. Sen Technical Services Private

Limited & Anr.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rishad Medora

Mr. Debmalya Ghosal

Mr. S.N. Dutt

Ms. Bhumika Popli

Mr. Souvik Ghosh

....For the petitioners.

Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AAG.

Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee

2

Mr. Amritlal Chatterjee

….For the State.

Hearing Concluded On : 10.03.2026

Judgment on : 18.03.2026

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order

passed by the Collector and Deputy Inspector General of Registration,

Range-I, Alipore, Kolkata dated 22

nd July, 2021, wherein the stamp

duty for registration of sale deed as per market value of the

apartment/unit along with one open car parking space is determined at

Rs. 1,45,14,836/-.

2. The petitioners have purchased two office spaces at the 1

st Floor, 113,

Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 admeasuring 2288 sq.ft super built up

area and admeasuring 1712 sq. ft. super built up area respectively from

one Bejon Behary Mullick through two separate registered sale deeds.

On completion of all formalities, the sale deed executed between the

parties was presented in the office of the respondent no. 5 on 9

th

September, 2003 for registration. On receipt of the two deeds, the office

of the respondent no.5 issued two separate IGR Receipts being R

226214 and R 226213 dated 9

th September, 2003 by recording deed

Nos. 06798 and 06799 respectively.

3. Even after the expiry of one month from the date of presentation of

deeds, the office of the respondent no.5 failed to hand over deeds to the

3

petitioners, accordingly, the petitioners time to time approached the

authority for handing over the deeds to the petitioners but the same

was not made available to the petitioners.

4. After the substantial period of time when the deed was not made

available to the petitioners, the petitioners approached the authorities

and it was informed to the petitioners that the original sale deeds are

not traceable and once it traced out, the same will be handed over to

the petitioners.

5. In spite of several requests when the deed was not handed over to the

petitioners, the petitioners approached the higher authorities.

Thereafter, the office of the respondent authorities informed to the

petitioners that due to inadvertence, the said deeds were not uploaded

by scanning in its regular course of business and the same cannot be

scanned and inserted in the requisite position by the respondents.

6. The petitioners approached the respondent no.5 for release of the said

deeds sometimes in the month of March, 2021 but the respondent no.5

insisted upon the petitioners to pay stamp duty on the prevailing

current market rate and generated fresh queries and demanded a sum

of Rs. 18,98,287/- and Rs. 25,36,955/- towards stamp duty and a sum

of Rs. 2,09,751/- and Rs. 2,80,327/- towards registration fees for the

area of 1712 and 2282 sq.ft. respectively.

7. As the petitioners were not agreeable to pay the stamp duty as per

present market values as assessed by the respondent no.5, the

4

respondent no.3 initiated proceeding under sub-section 5 of Section

47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and issued notice to the petitioners

on 22

nd July, 2021 and the respondent no.3 has passed the impugned

order.

8. Dr. S. Muralidhar, Learned Senior Advocate representing the

petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted two sale deeds

on 9

th September, 2003 and on receipt of the same, IGR numbers were

provided and the authorities ought to have register the said deeds

within a period of one month but inspite of several requests, the deeds

were not registered.

9. Dr. Muralidhar submits that it is the admitted case of the respondents

that the deeds were not traceable due to which the same cannot be

registered, thus the petitioners cannot be made liable to pay stamp

duty as per present market value. He submits that the respondents

have issued notice on 9

th July, 2021 under sub-section 5 of Section

47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, only upon repeated pursuance and

reminders by the petitioners after the period of 18 years from the date

of submission and execution of deeds, is illegal and arbitrary action on

the part of the respondents.

10. Dr. Muralidhar submits that at the time of execution and presentation

of the two deeds in the year 2003, the petitioners have duly paid the

stamp duty and there was no deficit stamp duty remaining to be paid

by the petitioners. He submits that when the matter was taken up for

5

hearing by this Court on 6

th August, 2025, the Learned Advocate

representing the respondents submits on instructions submits that the

sale deeds since have been located, which admits that the sale deeds

were not traceable.

11. Dr. Muralidhar submits that the petitioners have submitted two sale

deeds on 9

th September, 2003 and duly paid the required stamp duty

but the respondents have not registered the deed as it was not

traceable. The respondents have traced out the deeds only in the year

2021 i.e. after the period of 18 years, now the respondents cannot

demand for payment of stamp duty as per prevalent market rate. In

support of his case, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of

Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others Vs. Balasaheb

Tukaram Shevale and Others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 and

submits that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of

revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at

any point of time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable

time. He submits that one settled thing cannot be unsettled after a long

period of time where the legislature does not provide for any length of

time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the

authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power

within reasonable time therein.

12. Dr. Muralidhar further relied upon the judgment in the case of

Government of India Vs. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras

and Others reported in (1989) 3 SCC 483 and submits that in the

6

absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to

exercise the power within a reasonable period.

13. Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Learned AAG, submits that providing IGR

number itself cannot be said that the document is registered. He

submits that the petitioners have presented documents for registration

and accordingly IGR numbers, Serial Numbers and details of amount

paid for stamp duty have been provided to the petitioners. He submits

that the petitioners have not shown any piece of documents that after

presentation of the deeds have persuaded with the respondents for its

registration. He submits that the petitioners have presented deeds on

9

th September, 2003 and only in the year 2021, the petitioners have

approached the respondents for registration of Deeds and accordingly

the notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was

served upon the petitioners to access the stamp duty as per the

prevalent market value.

14. Mr. Sen submits that the respondent no.3 has taken into consideration

of the deeds and the stamp duty paid by the petitioners and also

ascertained the location of the property involved in the deeds and come

to the conclusion that the rate fixed by the Registering Authority at the

time of presentation of deeds is not at all at par with the prevailing rate

at that point of time when the deeds were presented. He submits that

the respondent no.3 further found that the procedure adopted by the

Registering Authority for the valuation of the property is dehors the

principles for determination of market value.

7

15. Mr. Sen submits that the respondent no.3 taking into account of all the

relevant factors has accessed the market value afresh for the year 2003

including car parking and come to the conclusion that total value of the

apartment/unit along with one open space for car parking is Rs.

1,45,14,836/- and for the another deed the value is Rs. 1,09,85,684/-.

16. Mr. Sen submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not

maintainable as the impugned order is an appealable order but instead

of filing an appeal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

17. Mr. Sen submits that the deed was never registered and thus when the

deed was produced before the respondents, the respondents came to

know that the valuation is not properly accessed and accordingly notice

under Sub-Section 5 of Section 47A was issued to the petitioner and

passed the impugned order. He submits that there is no time limit was

prescribed to ascertain the market value. He submits that after

presentation of two deeds, the petitioner has not taken any steps for

registration of the said deeds and only in the year 2021, the petitioners

have made representation for registration of sale deeds and when the

deeds were produced before the respondents, it was found that the

stamp duty was not properly accessed. He submits that the judgments

relied by the petitioners is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

18. There is no dispute that the petitioners have presented two deeds of

conveyance on 9

th September, 2003 for registration after payment of

8

stamp duty, IGR and serial number was also provided. At the time of

presentation of two conveyance deeds, the petitioners have paid stamp

duty with respect of one deed to the tune of Rs. 1,71,200/- and for the

another deed an amount of Rs. 2,28,800/-.

19. The first issue whether the petitioners have not approached the

registering authorities after presentation of the deeds or the authorities

has not registered the same. The petitioners have made specific

averments that the petitioners have made several request for

registration of the deeds after presentation but one or the other reasons

inspite of assurance the deeds were not registered and in the year 2021

when petitioners have made written request for registration and the

registering authority has started proceeding by issuing notice under

Sub-Section 5 of Section 47A of the Stamp Act, 1899.

20. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have admitted that two

documents were presented for registration at the office of the

registering authorities after formal completion and the same was

admitted to the registration and serial numbers were generated but “the

registration of the documents was kept in abeyance on the belief that the

facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of such instrument

with duty had not been truly set forth therein”. It is also stated in their

affidavit-in-opposition that “the parties to the documents did not turn up

to pay the deficit amount of government dues for completion of their

registration”.

9

21. From the said averments, it is clear that the authorities have not

registered the deeds for want of deficit stamp duty. The stand taken by

the respondents is not digestible: (i) the respondents have not placed

any documents to show that the deficit stamp duty was conveyed to

the petitioners, (ii) the respondent no.3 has accessed the stamped duty

only on 22

nd July, 2021, (iii) in the impugned order, it is also mentioned

that “now going through the recital of the order of the assessment done

by the concerned Registering Authority (RA), it is found that the rate

fixed by the Registering Authority (RA) is not at all at par with the rate

prevailing thereon at the time when the instruments were presented for

registration in the year 2003.” and (iv) in the order dated 6

th August,

2025, passed in the present proceeding, the Learned Counsel for the

respondents submits “upon instructions submits that the sale deeds

have since been located”.

22. This Court finds that the submissions made by the Counsel for the

respondents are contrary to the case made out in the affidavit-in-

opposition. The respondents have not shown that any notice have been

issued prior to 9

th July, 2021, regarding assessment of stamp duty and

market value. The respondents have issued notice only on 9

th July,

2021 for assessment of market value, thus it can be safely held that

there is no delay on the part of the petitioners.

23. Now, the issue is whether the proceeding initiated by the respondents

by issuing a notice under Sub-Section 5 of Section 47A of the Indian

10

Stamp Act, 1899 and reassessing stamp duty after the period of 18

years is in accordance with law or not.

24. Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in West Bengal

Amendment reads as follows:

“47A. Instruments of conveyance, etc.,

under-valued, how to be dealt with – (1) Where

the registering officer appointed under the

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), has, while

registering any instrument of –

(a) agreement or memorandum of any

agreement relating to a sale or lease-cum-sale of

immovable property,

(b) conveyance,

(c) exchange of property,

(d) gift,

(e) partition,

(f) power-of-attorney-

(i) when given for consideration to sell any

immovable property, or

(ii) in such other cases referred to in article

48 of Schedule IA, where proper stamp

duty is payable on the basis of market

value,

(g) settlement,

(h) transfer of lease by way of assignment,

reason to believe that the market value of the

property which is the subject-matter of any such

instrument has not been truly set forth in the

instrument presented for registration, he may, after

receiving such instrument, ascertain the market

value of the property which is the subject matter of

such instrument in the manner prescribed and

compute the proper stamp duty chargeable on the

market value so ascertained and thereafter he

shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in the Registration Act, 1908, in so far as

it relates to registration, keep registration of such

instrument in abeyance till the condition referred to

in sub-section (2) or subsection (7), as the case may

be, is fulfilled by the concerned person.

(2) Where the market value of the property

which is the subject-matter of an instrument has

11

been ascertained and the proper duty chargeable

thereon has been computed under sub-section (1),

the registering officer shall, in the manner

prescribed, send to the concerned person a notice

calling upon him to make payment of the deficit

amount of stamp duty within such time as may be

prescribed, and if such person makes payment of

such deficit amount of stamp duty in the prescribed

manner, the registering officer shall register the

instrument.

(3) Where the concerned person does not make

payment of the stamp duty as required under

subsection (2) within the time specified in the notice

issued under that sub-section, the registering

authority shall refer the matter to such authority

and in such manner as may be prescribed for

determination of the market value of the property

which is the subject-matter of such instrument and

the proper stamp duty payable thereon:

Provided that if the concerned person, before

receipt of any communication from such authority

intimating him the market value of the property

which is the subject-matter of the instrument and

the proper stamp duty payable thereon determined

by such authority, makes payment of the deficit

amount of stamp duty as ascertained by the

registering officer, such registering officer shall

accept such payment, register the instrument and

intimate the matter to such authority in the manner

prescribed.

(4) After the registering officer issues a notice

under sub-section (2) in respect of any instrument

referred to in clause (b), clause (c), clause (d),

clause (e) or clause (g) of subsection (1), which has

been presented before him for registration prior to

the coming into force of the Indian Stamp (West

Bengal Amendment) Act, 1998, and if the

concerned person makes payment of the deficit

amount of stamp duty within the time specified in

such notice, he shall register such instrument:

Provided that where such instrument has been

so registered under this sub-section, any reference

that has been made to the authority referred to in

sub-section (3) in respect of determination of the

market value of the property which is the subject-

matter of the instrument shall be deemed to have

12

been withdrawn and the registering officer shall

intimate the matter to such authority in such

manner as may be prescribed.

(5) on receipt of a reference under sub-section

(3), the authority specified under that subsection

shall, after giving the parties concerned in respect

of the instrument referred to in sub-section (1) a

reasonable opportunity of being heard and after

holding an enquiry in such manner as may be

prescribed, determine the market value of the

property which is the subject-matter of the

instrument and the proper stamp duty payable

thereon, and shall thereafter issue a notice in the

manner prescribed directing the concerned person

to make payment of such deficit amount of stamp

duty within such time as may be prescribed.

(6) * * * * *

(7) Where the concerned person makes

payment, in the manner prescribed, of the deficit

amount of stamp duty determined under sub-

section (5) [* * *], the registering officer shall, upon

furnishing by the concerned person a copy of

receipted challan or bank draft in proof of such

payment, register the instrument within such time

as may be prescribed.

(8) (a) The authority referred to in sub-section

(3) may, on receipt of any information or otherwise,

suo motu within five years from the date of

registration of any instrument, where such

instrument was registered on the basis of the

market value which was set forth in the instrument

or which was ascertained by the registering officer

referred to in sub-section (1), call for and examine

any such instrument and any other document

relating thereto for the purpose of satisfying himself

as to the correctness of the market value of the

property which is the subject-matter of such

instrument and which was set forth in the

instrument or which was ascertained under

subsection (2) and the stamp duty payable thereon

(b) If, after such examination, the authority

referred to in clause (a) has reasons to believe that

the market value of the property which is the

subject-matter of such instrument has not been

truly set forth in the instrument or correctly

13

ascertained under sub-section (2), he may, after

giving the parties concerned in the instrument a

reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine

the market value of the property which is the

subject-matter of such instrument and the amount

of stamp duty chargeable thereon in the manner

referred to in sub-section (5), and the difference in

the amount of stamp duty, if any, between the

stamp duty so determined by him and the stamp

duty already paid by the concerned person shall be

required to be paid by him in the prescribed

manner:

Provided that nothing in this shall apply to –

(a) any instrument referred to in clause (b),

clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), or clause (g) or

clause (ga) of sub-section (1) registered before the

31st day of January, 1994, or

(b) any instrument referred to in clause (a),

clause (f), or clause (h) of sub-section (1) registered

before the coming into force of the Indian Stamp

(West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1998.

(9) Notwithstanding anything contained

elsewhere in this section or section 47B, no interest

shall be payable in such cases, under such

circumstances, and subject to such conditions, if

any, as may be prescribed.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,

section 47B and section 47C, “concerned person”

shall mean the person who is liable to bear the

stamp duty under section 29.”

25. The respondent no.5 raised fresh queries in the month of March, 2021

demanding Rs. 18,98,287/- and Rs. 25,36,955/- towards stamp duty

and Rs. 2,09,751/- and Rs. 2,80,327/- being registration charges for

the land admeasuring 1712 sq.ft. and 2282 sq.ft. respectively. On 19

th

April, 2021, the respondent no.5 has given an offer to the petitioners to

pay Rs. 15,12,971/- and Rs. 11,32,084/- as stamp duty and Rs.

14

2,16,139/- and Rs. 1,61,726/- being registration fees. The petitioners

requested the respondents to consider the market value of the premises

in question during the year 2003 and to release the deeds. The

respondent no. 5 has not accepted the request of the petitioners and

accordingly, the respondent no.3 issued notice under sub-section 5 of

Section 47A on 9

th July, 2021, directing the petitioners to be present on

15

th July, 2021.

26. The respondent no.3 while assessing the market value in the year 2021

has taken into consideration that the property is located by the side of

near about 20’ wide metalled road and leads ultimately for not more

than 40 mtr. to open the door up to the Building Complex. The property

is a part of the said complex on the first floor. The respondent no. 3 has

come to the finding that the rate fixed by the Registering Authority is

not at all at par with the rate prevailing thereon at the time when the

deed was presented. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that “the

separate sheet incorporating the data from MVMR is annexed herewith

for ready reference” but no such reference is annexed with the order

nor the respondents have disclosed the same in their affidavit. The

respondent no.3 while assessing the market value of the property has

taken into consideration of 10% hike in the previous rate but has not

taken into consideration of depreciation.

27. The petitioners have purchased 940 sq. ft. of super built up area on the

1

st floor on the Southern side of the building situated at the premises

113, Park Street, Kolkata which is also the office area in the year 2004

15

and a conveyance deed was executed in the year 2004 and was

registered on 8

th May, 2013 wherein the market value of the property

was assessed at Rs. 37,60,000/-. The said property is the part of the

property of the present sale deeds of the same premises.

28. In the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that:

“11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a

statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise

of revisional power, it does not mean that such

power can be exercised at any time; rather it

should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is

so because the law does not expect a settled thing

to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the

legislature does not provide for any length of time

within which the power of revision is to be

exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise,

it is plain that exercise of such power within

reasonable time is inherent therein.”

29. In the case of Union of India and Another Vs. CITI Bank, N.A.

reported in (2022) 19 SCC 188, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :

“19. It is a settled proposition of law that

when the proceedings are required to be initiated

within a particular period provided under the

statute, the same are required to be initiated within

the said period. However, where no such period

has been provided in the statute, the authorities

are required to initiate the said proceeding within a

reasonable period. No doubt that what would be a

reasonable period would depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case.”

30. The petitioners have presented the two deeds on 9

th September, 2003

for registration and the same were admitted, IGR number was provided,

serial numbers were generated and appropriate stamp duty was also

16

paid but the Registering Authority failed to register the same. After the

period of 18 years i.e. in the year 2021, the respondent authorities

insisted the petitioners to pay the prevailing current market rate of the

property and have generated new queries. When the petitioners have

protested the same, the respondent no.3 has issued notice under Sub-

Section 5 of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The

respondents have slept over the matter about 18 years and in the

meantime another conveyance deed with respect to other portion of the

same building/ premises was registered in the year 2004 as per the

market value prevailing at the relevant point of time. No time limit is

prescribed in Sub-Section 5 of Section 47A of the Act. In Sub-Section 8

of Section 47A, five years’ time limit is prescribed for correctness of the

market value of the property from the date of registration of the

instrument. The notice is issued by the respondent no. 3 is under sub-

section 5 or sub-section 8 of Section 47A. Though in the present case,

deed was not registered but the same was admitted, serial number was

generated and IGR number was provided. In the affidavit-in-opposition,

it is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have not come

forward for payment of deficit stamp duty but the authorities have not

shown any documents that prior to 9

th July, 2021, any notice is issued

to the petitioner for assessment of market value.

31. Considering the above, this Court finds the assessment made by the

respondent no.3 after the period of 18 years from the date for

admission of deeds for registration is barred by limitation.

17

32. As regard to the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, Section

47B is available, if any, order is passed under Sub-Section 5 or Sub-

Section 8 of Section 47A by determining stamp duty. In the present

case the respondent no.3 has invoked the provisions of sub-section 5 or

sub-section 8 of Section 47A. If the respondents admitted that the

order passed under Sub-Section 8 of Section 47A, the order passed by

the respondent no.3 is barred by limitation. The respondent no.3 has

determined the market value of the property after the period of 18 years

from the date of admission of the deeds and the petitioners have filed

the writ petition on the ground that the respondent no.3 cannot

ascertain the market value after the period of 18 years from the date of

presentation of the deeds and the respondents have admitted that the

deeds have been presented in the year 2003 itself. The respondent no.3

has assessed the market value after the period of 18 years without

having jurisdiction.

33. In the case of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India & Others

reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2510, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held that:

“7. Decisions of this court are legion from

which guidance can aptly be drawn as to when a

writ petition ought to be entertained despite the

party approaching the High Court not exhausting

the alternative statutory remedy available to

him/her/it. Insistence by the courts—both this

court and the High Courts—of exhaustion of a

statutory remedy provided by an enactment before

invoking the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under

article 226 of the Constitution can be traced to one

of several self-imposed restrictions, laid down by

18

judicial precedents of this court. Unless, of course,

any of the exceptions (challenge to an act/order

grounded on (i) breach of a fundamental right; (ii)

violation of natural justice principles; (iii) lack of

jurisdiction; and (iv) unconstitutionality of a statute)

is satisfied, that a writ court may refuse to

entertain a writ petition does not admit of any

doubt. This court relying on a host of decisions

including State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh,

reiterated that availability of an alternative

statutory remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of a

writ court. It was also explained how

“entertainability of a writ petition” is a concept

distinct from the concept of “maintainability of a

writ petition”.

15. In our considered opinion, the appellant

having had a remedy before the High Court in a

separate jurisdiction which was equally efficacious,

he indulged in the (mis) adventure of invoking its

writ jurisdiction which was rightly not entertained.”

34. In the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh and Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that:

“27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate

remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been

filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right

protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there

has been a violation of the principles of natural

justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly

without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation

is challenged.”

35. In the present case, the respondent no.3 has invoked the provision of

Sub-Section 5 of Section 47A after the period of 18 years though the

petitioner has presented deeds on 9

th September, 2003 and the same

was admitted, serial numbers were generated and IGR numbers were

provided. For 18 years, the respondents have not raised any objection

19

to the stamp duty paid by the petitioners. It is also the fact that sale

deed of part of the property of the same premises was registered in the

year 2004 as per the market value assessed at the relevant point of

time.

36. Considering the above, this Court did not find any substance with

regard to maintainability of the writ application raised by the

respondents.

37. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 22

nd July, 2021,

passed by the respondent no.3 are set aside and quashed.

38. In terms of the order passed by this Court dated 6

th August, 2025, the

petitioners have paid the stamp duty as specified in the assessment

order dated 22

nd July, 2021, without prejudiced to the rights and

contentions of the petitioners, thus the respondents are directed to

refund the stamp duty paid by the petitioners in terms of the impugned

order dated 22

nd July, 2021, within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt of this order.

39. WPA No. 14374 of 2021 is disposed of. CAN No. 1 of 2025 and CAN

No. 2 of 2025 are also disposed of.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

20

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)