Mr.L.Vasudevan v. 1.The Inspector of General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-28.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 8.2.2008CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.NOS.37689 AND 37690 OF 2007Mr.L.Vasudevan ...Petitioner in both W.Ps.Vs.1.The Inspector of General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-28.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Zone, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1.2. The District Registrar, Chengalpattu.4. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur. ..Respondents in both W.Ps.Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a writ of Certiorrified mandamus to call for therecords relating to the impugned communication Letter No.519/2007 dated22.10.2007 issued by the fourth respondent herein and quash the sameand direct the respondents herein to collect the stamp duty andregistration charges at the rate of Rs.600/- per cent as collected inthe other documents, after collecting the difference amount to releasethe registered document No.22427 of 2007 and 22429 of 2007respectively, within a short date that may be fixed by this Court.For Petitioner:Ms.G.SrideviFor respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal,Govt. Advocate---O R D E RTwo writ petitions are filed by the petitioner hereinchallenging the order of the 4th respondent viz. Sub Registrar,Sriperumbudur dated 22.10.2007 by which the fourth respondent hasdirected the petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs.9,504/- and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration charge of Rs.1,185/- in respect of document which isnumbered as P.No.28/07, the subject matter of challenge in writpetition in W.P.No.37689 of 2007 and an amount of Rs.82,544/- towardsthe deficit stamp duty and an amount of Rs.10,315/- towardsRegistration charges regarding document No.22428/06, the subjectmatter of challenge in writ petition in W.P.No.37690 of 2007.Admittedly, both the documents are not released by the fourthrespondent, Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the valuation inrespect of the properties which are in the same survey number havingmade as Rs.5,000/- per cent which according to the petitioner is not aproper guide line value fixed. The further case of the petitioner isthat the same petitioner has registered two other documents in the veryadjacent survey numbers on the same day of presentation of thedocuments viz., 23.11.2006, registered as Document No.22427 of 2006 and22429 of 2006 wherein the guideline value of the property was fixed bythe very fourth respondent at Rs.600/- per cent. Therefore, accordingto the petitioner, the impugned orders are ex facie arbitrary. 3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate wouldsubmit that it is on the basis of the revised guideline value, asapproved by the authority only the impugned order came to be passed towhich the fourth respondent has every jurisdiction. Learned GovernmentAdvocate has also fairly produced a letter of the fourth respondentaddressed to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai by which he hasreferred a document viz. No.25032 of 2007 under Section 47(A)(1) of theIndian Stamp Act for the purpose of fixation of the guideline value. Areference to the letter shows that it also relates to the propertyadjacent to the present property in dispute and there also the marketvalue has been fixed at the rate of Rs.5000/- per cent. While so, inthe present case, the fourth respondent has chosen to pass an orderdirecting the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty for the purposeof registration. But, it is clear that the petitioner has filed thedocuments which are subject matter of dispute of both the writpetitions for registration before 4th respondent i.e. on 23.11.2007 andall other requirements under law have been complied with. On the otherhand, the other two documents which have been referred to above werealso presented by the same petitioner on the same day on 23.11.2007. Italso relates to the property in the same place, but adjacent surveynumber. In respect of those properties, the guideline value fixed bythe fourth respondent is Rs.600/- per cent and the documents werereleased. However, in respect of the present properties in dispute inthese two writ petitions, the fixation of guideline value at Rs.5,000/-per cent has no basis. The impugned orders also does not explain underwhat basis the amount of Rs.5,000/- per cent has been fixed. In theabsence of proper guideline has been fixed in this case, I am of theconsidered view that it is the duty of the 4th respondent to refer the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same to the revenue authorities for the purpose of fixation ofguideline value as per Section 47(A)(1) of Indian Stamp Act.4. Section 47(A)(1) enables the registering authority torefer the instrument to the Collector for determination of the marketvalue of the property for the assessment of duty to be payable thereon,in case where the Registering authority is of the view that the marketvalue of the property relating to the instrument or conveyance,exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has not beentruly set forth by the person who present the document. After thedecision taken by the Collector, a person aggrieved by such order, hasa right of preferring an appeal to the authority who is the ChiefControlling Revenue authority (According to the learned GovernmentAdvocate I.G. of Registration) and that appeal is provided underSection 47(A)(5) which reads as follows:47(A)(5): Any person aggrieved by anorder of the Collector under Sub-Section (2) orsub-Section (3), may appeal to such authority asmay be prescribed in this behalf. All such appealsshall be preferred within such time, and shall beheard and disposed of in such manner, as may beprescribed by rules made under this Act."5. Even as against the order of the Chief Controlling RevenueAuthority, the petitioner has got right to file an appeal before thisCourt as contemplated under Section 47(A)(10) which reads as follows:47(A)(10): Any person aggrieved by anorder of the authority prescribed under sub-section(5) or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authorityunder Sub-Section (6) may, within such time and insuch manner, as may be prescribed by rules madeunder this Act, appeal to the High Court.Explanation:- For the purpose of this Act, marketvalue of any property shall be estimated to be theprice which, in the opinion of the Collector or theChief Controlling Authority or the High Court, asthe case may be, such property would have fetched orwould fetch, if sold in the open market on the dateof execution of the instrument of conveyance,exchange, gift, release of benami right orsettlement. 6. It is further seen that there is a revision poweravailable under Section 56 of the Act in respect of the orders passedby various authorities stated above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Under such circumstances, on the admitted fact thatthe fourth respondent himself has referred another document to theauthority as stated above for ascertaining the market value underSection 47(A)(1) of the Act, it is not known as to how in the presentcase, the fourth respondent has not followed the same procedure. Inview of the above said factual position, there is absolutely nothingon record to show as to how a differential treatment has been given tothe petitioner in respect of assessment of the market value of theproperty. The impugned orders are set aside with a direction to thefourth respondent to refer the documents in dispute in these writpetitions to the authority concerned for ascertaining the market valueas per Section 47(A)(1) of the Stamp Act and on such reference, theauthority concerned shall give notice to the petitioner and considerall the claims of the petitioners as it is claimed in these writpetitions and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that the fourthrespondent shall make a reference as set out above, within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on suchreference, the authority, contemplated under Section 47(A)(1) of theStamp Act, shall conduct an enquiry and pass orders expeditiously, inany event within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.8. With the above observation, the writ petitions aredisposed of. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarVJYTo1.The Inspector of General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai-28.2. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Chennai Zone, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The District Registrar, Chengalpattu.4. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sriperumbudur+2ccs to Mrs.G.Sridevi, Advocate Sr 6719 & 6722+1cc Govt. Pleader Sr 6626 KU(CO)km/19.2.W.P.NOS.37689 AND 37690 OF 2007