A.J.Mapillai Mohadeen v. Sub-Registrar Office, Arakandanallur & Ors.

up for final disposal.3.The case of the petitioner is as under :(i) The property originally belonged to M/s.SriRaghavendra Splints Industries, Tirukoilur Taluk, apartnership concern having its Head Office at Tirukoilur andfactory at R.S.No.77/4 Kuladeepamangalam Village, TirukoilurTaluk. The said property was mortgaged with the Tamil NaduIndustrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter called TIIC).As the said Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries had committeddefault, TIIC foreclosed the loan by taking possession ofthe property under Section 29 of the State FinancialCorporations Act, 1951, and conducted the tender-cum-publicauction on 29.11.2006 bringing the property for auction. Thepetitioner had offered the highest bid amount of Rs.4 lakhsin the tender-cum-public auction and TIIC accepted the offerof the petitioner and agreed to sell the properties viz.,property measuring 1.23 acres with building in R.S.No.77/4and also 0.05 cents out of 0.85 cents in R.S.No.77/6situated in Kuladeepmanagalm Village, Tirukovilur Taluk,Villupuram District. The auction was confirmed on06.03.2007.(ii)In view of the acceptance of the offer, TIICexecuted sale deed over the properties by a sale deed dated05.04.2007 and pursuant to the said sale deed, possessionwas also handed over to the petitioner. In order toregister the sale deed, as the value of the property wasRs.4 lakhs, the petitioner paid Rs.32,000/- towards stampduty. But, the 1st respondent, without accepting the same,sent the document to the 2nd respondent for proper valuationand notification. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has fixedthe stamp duty at Rs.2,16,000/- taking into account themarket value of the property and issued the proceedings tothe effect that the petitioner has to pay Rs.2,16,000/-,else the documents will not be released. Aggrieved over thesame, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23.01.2007before the 3rd respondent stating that he purchased theproperty from TIIC, which is a public authority and,therefore, he is not liable to pay more than what is statedin the sale deed and the said appeal is pending.(iii)It is not the case of the respondents thatthe petitioner has paid consideration more than what hasbeen recited in the deed of conveyance executed by TIIC;moreover, it is beyond one's apprehension that TIIC, astatutory body, would receive excess amount that what hasbeen actually paid and recited as sale consideration in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deed of conveyance executed by it in favour of the auctionpurchaser; merely because the market value is high, the 1strespondent cannot have any reason whatsoever to doubt aboutthe consideration paid by him to TIIC.(iv)Since the document has not been released, thepetitioner is put to serious loss and irreparable hardshipand having no other alternative remedy, he has approachedthis Court.4.In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the saleconsideration of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by the petitioner to the TIIC isnot denied. They have stated that the value of the property, as perGuideline, worked out to Rs.23,43,936/- and hence it was referred tothe Collector for determination of the value of the property inquestion and the petitioner has also consented to refer the documentto the Collector in his letter dated 27.06.2007. According to therespondents, they have acted in accordance with the provisions of TheIndian Stamp Act and The Prevention of Undervaluation of InstrumentRules.4.1.With regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner, therespondents in their counter affidavit have submitted as under:(i)As per Section 47A(1) of The Indian Stamp Act, the1st respondent and the 2nd respondent determined the value ofthe property as Rs.31,00,000/- (site value - Rs.20,09,088/-;Building value – Rs.10,90,912/-) and the required Stamp Dutyis Rs.2,48,000/-; the petitioner paid the Stamp Duty ofRs.32,000/-; the deficit Stamp Duty of Rs.2,16,000/- wasdirected to be paid by the petitioner and the same iscorrect, legal and well within the rules and regulations ofPrevention of Undervaluation of Instrument Rules.(ii)Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act clearlystates that while registering any instrument of conveyance,if there is reason to believe that the market value of theproperty which is the subject matter of conveyance has notbeen truly set forth in the instrument, the said documentmay be referred to the Collector under Section 47(A) of theIndian Stamp Act for determination of the market value ofsuch property.(iii)The petitioner had purchased the property inthe auction conducted by TIIC and the sale deed was alsoexecuted by the statutory authority. When it was presentedfor registration, the registering authority, i.e. the 1strespondent had reason to believe that the market value ofthe property had not been truly set forth in the instrument, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and, therefore, the same was sent to the Collector fordetermination of the correct market value. Hence theCollector determined the market value and directed thepetitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty.5.In the counter filed by the second respondent, it is statedas follows:(i)The market value of the building is determined atRs.2,50,000/- and the house site value is determined atRs.1,50,000/- and the age of the building is noted as 18years. The petitioner has purchased the land for a sum ofRs.4,00,000/- and paid the stamp duty of Rs.32,000/-;since the house site value of the land in R.S.Nos.77/4 and77/6 in Kuladeepamangalam Village has been fixed at Rs.42/-per sq. feet in the Guideline Value Register maintained bythe Sub-Registrar's Office, the Sub-Registrar,Arakandanallur, has worked out the house site value atRs.23,43,936/- and promptly referred the matter to theSpecial Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore, requesting tofix the value of the building thereon as instructed by theInspector General of Registration vide his OrderNo.40931/B1/2001-1 dated 19.08.2002 and to take action torecover the deficit stamp duty from the purchaser inaccordance with the provisions laid down under Section 47-A(1).(ii)The petitioner was issued a notice in Form Iunder Section 4 of the Prevention of Undervaluation Rules,1968 by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Cuddalore tofile his claim and objections if any, in the collection ofthe deficit stamp duty. The petitioner in his letter dated20.08.2007 has stated that the market value of the land inquestion was fixed at Rs.42/- per sq. feet by the Sub-Registrar concerned and requested to fix the value afterfield inspection. Accordingly, the property was inspectedon 14.09.2007 and an open enquiry was conducted. Thepetitioner was also present and objected to fix the valueof the land at Rs.42/- per square feet as the land iscultivable, whereas the village public suggested to fixthe value of the land at Rs.35/- per square feet. (iii)The land had also been inspected by theSpecial Deputy Collector Stamps, Cuddalore and it was foundthat Sarguru Nagar Layout has been formed on the easternand western side of the property in question and north toManalurpet Road. Further, in the adjacent area nearbyTiruvannamalai Road, house site layout has also beenformed. During the subsequent sale made on 05.02.2007, asite measuring 4360 sq. ft. in R.S.No.84/5 was sold forRs.1,83,120/- at the rate of Rs.42/- per sq. ft. The land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in question was found to be lying waste and the petitioneradduced a copy of the Adangal for fasli 1416. In view ofthese facts, the rate at Rs.42/- per sq. ft. as fixed bythe Sub-Registrar may be high. However, taking the view ofthe village public that the value of the land may be fixedat Rs.35/- per sq. ft., the rate of the land per squarefeet has been considered and fixed at Rs.36/-, just Re.1/-high to the suggestion of the village public.(iv)As regards the value of structure on theproperty, the nature of the building, its age, trees andother accessories have been taken into account and afterdeducting the depreciation value, the net value is fixed atRs.10,65,852/- and the total value of the house site andbuilding is fixed at Rs.30,75,000/-; the stamp duty at 8%is fixed at Rs.2,46,000/- and since the petitioner haspaid a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards stamp duty, the deficitstamp duty is Rs.2,14,000/-. The Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Cuddalore in his proceedings in M.R.No.307/07-08dated 14.09.2007 has passed an order directing thepetitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,14,000/-and to file an appeal before the Inspector General ofRegistration, Chennai within a period of 60 days from thedate of the order. The order was sent to the petitioner byRPAD and it was duly received by him on 29.09.2007. But,on behalf of the petitioner, one K.Asokan, who is said tobe the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner has filedthe present writ petition.(v)The averments of the petitioner are notmaintainable in law and it is not true that the petitionerhas offered the highest bid amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in theTender-cum-Public Auction; since the sale of the propertyhas been made under the Tamil Nadu Registration Act, thesale is liable for charging stamp duty under the IndianStamp Act. TIIC is a Company registered under the IndianCompanies Act, 1913 and the document is liable to beassessed under the Prevention of Under Valuation Rules,1968 and under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act andtherefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the differentialcost of stamp duty together with interest accrued thereon.Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.6.Heard Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, learned Government Advocate forthe respondents.7.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that theaction of the 1st respondent in referring the matter to the 2ndrespondent and the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum of Rs.2,14,000/- towards deficit stamp duty is illegal andarbitrary. It is her further contention that merely because there isan increase in the market value, it cannot be assumed that thestatutory authority received more consideration and in fact, theInspector General of Registration, the 3rd respondent, has directedall the Registrars in the State to release the documents withoutinsisting on further payment of stamp duty, even if such instrumentshad already been referred to Special Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty)for the purpose of valuation/verification. The learned counsel hasalso submitted that the petitioner has purchased the property in theauction conducted by the public authority-TIIC and the sale deed hasalso been executed by the statutory authority and, hence, thepetitioner cannot be compelled to pay more stamp duty based on theguideline value, especially when the valuation is based on theallotted price from a public authority and when there is no need forvaluation.In support of her case, learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on the following decisions :(i)1997 (II) CTC 617, S.P.Padmavathi vs. The State of TamilNadu and others :"10.... The underlined words contained in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly reveal theintention of the Legislature in inserting the aforesaidsection 47-A of the Act. The basis for exercising thepower under Section 47-A is that there must be a reason tobelieve that the market value of the property, which is thesubject matter of the conveyance, has not been truly setforth in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure tobe followed in respect of each and every document ofconveyance presented for registration, without any evidenceto show lack of bonafides on the part of the parties to thedocument by attempting fraudulently to under-value thesubject of conveyance with a view to evade payment ofproper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to the Revenue.Therefore, the basis for exercise of the power undersection 47-A of the Act is wilful under-valuation of thesubject of transfer, with fraudulent intention to evadepayment of proper stamp duty.11.... Having regard to the object of the Act, weare inclined to think that normally the considerationstated as the market value in a given instrument broughtfor registration should be taken to be correct unlesscircumstances exist which suggest fraudulent evasion. Evenin such a case, we trust that disputes will not be raisedfor petty sums. Unless the difference is considerable orsizable and it appears patent that the amount mentioned inthe document is in gross undervalue, no disputation as to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ value is expected to be started....The power should be exercised with great cautionand care should be taken to ensure that it does not work asan engine of operation. It has also been further observedthat normally the consideration stated as the market valuein an instrument brought for registration should be takento be correct, unless the circumstances exist which suggestfraudulent evasion. The Division Bench has also furtherstated that in such a case, the disputes should not beraised for petty sums unless the difference is considerableor sizeable and it appears patent that the amount mentionedin the document is gross under-valuation. We are of thefirm view that Section 47-A of the Act came to be insertedby the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 24 of 1967 with a view tocheck fraudulent evasion of stamp duty payable on thedocuments while registering any instrument of conveyance,exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement. Thequestion as to fraudulent evasion of capital gain tax andthe purpose of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act,preventing such fraudulent evasion of capital gain tax bymaking under valuation came up for consideration before theSupreme Court in C.B.Gautam vs. Union of India and others,1992 (6) J.T. 678. While considering the purpose ofChapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Courtspecifically pointed out that although a presumption of anattempt to evade the tax may be raised by the appropriateauthority concerned, but it has to determine that in agiven transaction of an agreement to sell there might beseveral bona fide considerations which might induce aseller to sell his immovable property at less than whatmight be consideration as a air market value.15.We accordingly, answer Point No.1 as follows:" ...Power under Section 47-A of the Act can onlybe exercised when the Registering Officer has reason tobelieve that the market value of the property, which is thesubject of conveyance, has not been truly set forth, withview to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty.Mere lapse of time between the date of agreement will notbe the determining factor that the document is undervaluedand such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to invokethe power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there islack of bona fides and fraudulent attempt on the part ofthe parties to the document to undervalue the subject oftransfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

26.Therefore, we are of the view that in the case ofinstrument of conveyance executed pursuant to the decreefor specific performance passed by the Civil Court, inwhich there is no allegation of under-valuation or lack ofbona fides, the mere fact that there is a time gap betweenthe agreement of sale and the execution of the document, isnot sufficient to the Registering Officer to invoke hispower under Section 47A of the Act, unless there arereasons to believe that there is an attempt on the part ofthe parties to the instrument to deliberately undervaluethe subject of transfer with a view to evade payment ofproper stamp duty.30.Learned Government Pleader also relied on thedecision of this Court in R.Thiagasundaram vs. State ofTamil Nadu, AIR 1991 Mad. 82 in which it has been held thatthe value as accepted by the Civil Court is not binding onthe Registering Officer. However, this is thecircumstances to be taken into consideration. We are nottesting our decision on the ground that value mentioned inthe agreement is accepted by Civil Court. We are of theview that the transaction in question does not suffer fromlack of bona fide and that there are no reasons to believethat the true value of the property is not set forth in thedocument.31.For all the above reasons, we answer pursuant tothe decree for specific performance passed by the CivilCourt, in which there is no allegation of deliberate under-valuation or lack of bona fides in valuing the subject oftransfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty,the mere fact that there is a time gap between theagreement of sale and the execution of the document byitself is not sufficient for the Registering Officer toinvoke his power under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, unlessthere are reasons to believe that there is an attempt onthe part of the parties to the instrument to undervalue,with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty.32.Point No.2:In the light of the findingsrecorded on Points 1 and 2 in view of the fact that theorder of the learned single Judge has proceeded on thebasis that it is the market value of the property on thedate of execution will be the determining factor fordetermining the amount of stamp duty payable on thedocument and the Registering Officer has also not statedany circumstances which led him to believe that there wasdeliberate or fraudulent under valuation of the subject oftransfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order of the learned single Judge which is alsoreported in 1993 (1) L.W. 629 and also that of theRegistering Officer require to be interfered with. Thispoint is answered accordingly."(ii)2002 (2) CTC 329, R.Sukumaran and seven others vs. State ofTamil Nadu and seven others :"21....Merely because there has been an increase inthe market value due to the passage of time, it cannot beassumed that the Housing Board has received considerationmore than what has been recited in the document. The overanxious Registrar, who is also conscious to collect morerevenue cannot have any inkling or reason, doubt or tobelieve that there is under-valuation or evasion of stampduty. Therefore, it has to be held that absolutely theRegistrar cannot have any ground or reason or rhyme orbasis or reason whatsoever to doubt about the considerationpaid by the transferee to the Housing Board, thetransferor. The same is the legal position even in respectof commercial plot/flat as well and there could be nodifference in that behalf nor there could be anydiscrimination."(iii)2008 (1) CTC 60 (SC), State of Rajasthan and othersvs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers :"13....If any doubt arises in the mind of theRegistering Authority that the instrument is under-valuedthen as per Section 47-A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) theinstrument can be sent to the Collector for determinationof the correct market value. Under Section 47-A read withSections 3, 17 and 27, it becomes clear that theRegistering Authority has to ascertain the correctvaluation given in the instrument regarding market value ofthe property at the time of the sale.14....A taxing statute has to be construed as it isall these contingencies that the matter was underlitigation and the value of the property by that time shotup cannot be taken into account for interpreting theprovisions of a taxing statute. As already mentioned abovea taxing statute has to be construed strictly and if it isconstrued strictly then the plea that the incumbent took along time to get a decree for execution against the vendorthat consideration cannot weigh with the Court forinterpreting the provisions of the taxing statutes.Therefore, simply because the matter have been in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ litigation for a long time that cannot be a considerationto accept the market value of the instrument when theagreement to sale was entered. As per Section 17, itclearly says at the time when registration is made, thevaluation is to be seen on that basis. "(iv)(2008) 4 SCC 720, Government of Andhra Pradesh and othersvs. P.Laxmi Devi :"28.We may, however, consider a hypothetical case.Supposing the correct value of a proper is Rs.10 lakhs andthat is the value stated in the sale deed, but theregistering officer erroneously determines it to be, say,Rs.2 crores. In that case, while making a reference to theCollector under Section 47-A, the registering officer willdemand duty on 50% of Rs.2 crores i.e. duty on Rs.1 croreinstead of demanding duty on Rs.10 lakhs. A party may notbe able to pay this exorbitant duty demanded under theproviso to Section 47-A by the registering officer in sucha case. What can be done in this situation?29.In our opinion in this situation, it is alwaysopen to a party to file a writ petition challenging theexorbitant demand made by the registering officer under theproviso to Section 47-A alleging that the determinationmade is arbitrary and/or based on extraneousconsiderations, and in that case it is always open to theHigh Court, if it is satisfied that the allegation iscorrect, to set aside such exorbitant demand under theproviso to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act by declaring thedemand arbitrary. It is well settled that arbitrarinessviolates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhivs. Union of India. Hence, the party is not remediless inthis situation."8.Per contra, learned Government Advocate for therespondents has stated that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 indetermining the value of the property at Rs.30,75,000/- and the stampduty at Rs.2,46,000/- and directing the petitioner to pay a sum ofRs.2,14,000/- as deficit stamp duty is correct and well within therules and regulations of Prevention of Undervaluation of InstrumentRules; though, it is true that the petitioner has offered the highestbid amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the Tender-cum-Public Auction, thesale of the property has been made under the Tamil Nadu RegistrationAct and, therefore, the sale is liable for charging stamp duty underthe Indian Stamp Act. The learned Government Advocate has furtherstated that the property under the sale deed has been inspected by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the authorities concerned and proceedings have been taken under theprovisions laid down under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Actand the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),Cuddalore, directing the petitioner to pay the differential cost ofstamp duty with interest thereon is just and proper and, therefore,the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of hisargument, the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on thedecision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 in the caseof State of Rajasthan and others vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, whereinit is held as under :"6.The question is whether the valuation should beassessed on the market rate prevailing at the time ofregistration of the sale deed or when the parties enteredinto agreement to sell.7.Learned counsel for the State has submitted thatthe Stamp Act is a taxing statute and a taxing statute hasto be construed strictly. Whatsoever may have been theconsideration for the vendor not to get the sale deedexecuted is a matter between both the parties, but when thematter is before the Registering Authority, the RegisteringAuthority has to see the valuation of the property at themarket value at the time of registration as per Section 17of the Act. ... "9.I have carefully considered the submissions made bythe learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records.10. An analysis of the case wold reveal that the petitioneris the auction purchaser of the property originally belonging to oneM/s.Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries, Tirukoilur, a partnershipconcern, situated at R.S.No.77/4 Kuladeepamangalam Village,Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District, and the said property wasmortgaged with TIIC. As there was a default of payment, TIIC hadbrought the property in public auction under Section 29 of the StateFinancial Corporations Act, 1951, and the said auction was conductedon 29.11.2006. The petitioner being the highest bidder had offeredRs.4.00 lakhs in the tender-cum-public auction. The said offer hasbeen accepted and thereafter it was agreed to sell the propertymeasuring 1.23 acres with building in R.S.No.77/4 and also 0.05 centsout of 0.85 cents in R.S.No.77/6 situate in Kuladeepamangalamvillage. Accordingly, TIIC has executed a sale deed in favour of thepetitioner on 05.04.2007 and pursuant to the same, possession wasalso handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has taken stepsto get the property registered, for which value of the property wasfixed at Rs.4.00 lakhs by the pubic authority and the petitioner paida sum of Rs.32,000/- towards stamp duty. However, the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, without accepting the said amount, referred the documentto the second respondent for proper valuation and notification.Pursuant to that, the second respondent fixed the stamp duty atRs.2,46,000/-, taking into account the market value of the propertyand issued the proceedings to the effect that the petitioner has topay deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,14,000/- and informed the petitionerthat unless the said amount is paid, the document will not bereleased. Aggrieved over the action of the second respondent, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent on23.02.2007, on the ground that the subject property has beenpurchased in the public auction and the value fixed by the publicauthority and, therefore, he is not liable to pay more than the valuefixed by the public authority in the sale deed.11.On evaluation of the above facts of the case and thesubmissions made by the counsel on either side, the points whicharise for consideration in this Writ Petition are :(i)When the public authority has fixed the value of theproperty in a public auction sale, whether that value can be doubtedto refer the matter under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act ?(ii)Whether there is any fraudulent intention on the partof the petitioner in presenting the document for registration ?12. Coming to the first point, it is seen that there is nodispute that the property in question was put to public auction on29.11.2006 and the petitioner being the highest bidder has purchasedthe said property, for which sale deed was executed on 05.04.2007.It is also seen that TIIC, which is not a party to the present WritPetition and is an authority in the State of Tamil Nadu, is governedby the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Under the provisionsof the Act, the property in question was brought under public auctionas per Section 29 of the Act. While exercising the power by TIIC,they evaluated the property and fixed the value based on the marketvalue of the property at the time of public auction i.e., on29.11.2006. After handing over of the possession and the sale deedwas executed on 05.04.2007, the document was presented forregistration immediately. There is no much time gap between thepublic auction and the execution of sale deed. The auction wasconfirmed on 06.03.2007. Therefore, there is no reason to believethat the value fixed by the public authority has been changed. 13. Section 47-A of the Act states that if the registeringofficer appointed under the Indian Registration Act,1908, whileregistering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift release ofbenami right or settlement has reason to believe that the marketvalue of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance,has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, afterregistering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ determination of the market value of such property and the properduty payable thereon. 14. From the above Section, it is clear that when theregistering officer has reason to believe that the market value ofthe property has not been truly set forth in the instrument with aview to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty, he may,after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collectorfor determination of the market value of such property and the properduty payable thereon. 15. Power under Section 47-A of the Act can only beexercised when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that themarket value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, hasnot been truly set forth, with view to fraudulently evade payment ofproper stamp duty. Mere lapse of time between the date of agreementwill not be the determining factor that the document is undervaluedand such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to invoke the powerunder Section 47-A of the Act, unless there is lack of bona fides andfraudulent attempt on the part of the parties to the document toundervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment ofproper stamp duty. 16. Therefore, in the present case, when there is nofraudulent attempt on the part of the petitioner to undervalue thesubject of transfer, the authority has no power to fix the marketvalue and impose the stamp duty at Rs.2,46,000/- instead ofRs.32,000/-, which is already paid by the petitioner, for the valuefixed by the public authority. In other words, when the value itselfis properly assessed and fixed by the public authority, it cannot beconstrued that the petitioner has undervalued the property. In theabsence of any material to arrive at a conclusion that there is anundervaluation of the property, the direction of the secondrespondent to the petitioner to pay the enhanced stamp duty cannot besustained.17. A perusal of the impugned proceedings does not reflectany substantial reason to arrive at a conclusion to differ from thevalue already fixed by the authority, thereby increasing the marketvalue and enhancing the stamp duty.18. The law is well settled and this Court, in a number ofdecisions, has held that unless there is a fraudulent attempt on thepart of the parties to the document to evade payment of proper stampduty and a determining factor that the document is undervalued forsome reasons, the authority cannot exercise his power arbitrarilywithout any basis. The power should be exercised with great cautionand care should be taken to ensure that it does not operate as anengine of operation. It has also been further observed that normally https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the consideration stated as the market value in an instrument broughtfor registration should be taken to be correct, unless thecircumstances exist to suggest fraudulent evasion. The said principlehas been laid down by this Court in S.P.Padmavathi v. State of TamilNadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617. In R.Sukumaran's case cited by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, this Court has held that merely becausethere has been an increase in the market value due to passage oftime, it cannot be assumed that the transferor has receivedconsideration more than what has been recited in the document andtherefore it has to be held that the Registrar cannot have any groundor reason to doubt about the consideration paid by the transferee tothe transferor. In State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers,cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Courthas held that under Section 47-A read with Sections 3,17 and 27, itbecomes clear that the Registering Authority has to ascertain thecorrect valuation given in the instrument regarding the market valueof the property at the time of the sale. Also, in Government ofAndhra Pradesh v. P.Laxmi Devi, referred above, the Apex Court hasheld that it is always open to a party to file a writ petitionchallenging the exorbitant demand made by the registering officerunder the proviso to Section 47-A alleging that the determinationmade is arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations and in thatcase it is always open to the High Court, if it is satisfied that theallegation is correct, to set aside such exorbitant demand, declaringit as arbitrary. 18. Unless there is an undervaluation of the subject matterwith fraudulent intention to evade proper payment of stamp duty, therespondents cannot impose such a heavy stamp duty on the petitionerwith regard to the document in question. Therefore, in this case, thevalue fixed by the public authority in the public auction cannot bedoubted for reference under Section 47-A (1).20. As regards the second point, it is not the case of therespondents that the petitioner has wilfully or fraudulentlypresented the document with deficit stamp duty. It cannot also bedisputed that the property in question was purchased by thepetitioner in a public auction conducted by the public authority asper the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act. Theassessment of the value of the property by the public authority atthe time of public auction is a material consideration for theassessment of the market value. It is seen, there is no much timegap either from public auction to confirmation of sale; fromconfirmation of sale to making of payment or from making of paymentto the execution of sale deed. In the absence of any lapses on thepart of the petitioner in presenting the document for registration,there cannot be any convincing reasons to disbelieve or doubt thevalue of the document, assessed by the public authority. Hence, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there is no material before this Court to come to a conclusion thatthere is a fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner inpresenting the document for registration, by undervaluing theproperty and not paying the proper stamp duty.21. The necessary corollary of the above paragraphs wouldbe that based on the market value assessed by the public authority,sale deed has been executed and stamp duty paid. Therefore, themarket value stated in the instrument brought for registration shouldbe taken to be correct and that value cannot be doubted ordisbelieved. 22. In the light of the elaborate discussion made above andfollowing the legal proposition and various rulings referred toabove, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has tosucceed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with a directionto the respondents to register the document No.1620, dated04.04.2007, and release the same to the petitioner in accordance withlaw. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 isclosed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarabe/dixitTo1.The Sub-Registrar,Registration Department,Sub-Registrar Office, Arakandanallur.2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),Cuddalore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Inspector General of Registration,Registration Department,No.20, Santhome High Road,Santhome, Chennai 600 028.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 41818+1cc to Mrs. S.Radha Gopalan, Advocate Sr 41516TS (CO)km/12.8.W.P. No.2359 of 2008