Madras High Court
M.A.Jaffar Sathik vs The District Revenue Officer ... on 27 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
M.A.Jaffar Sathik ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) /
Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Office of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Registration Department,
Madurai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Nagalnaickenpatti Sub-Registrar Office,
Dindigul.
3.The Authorised Officer,
Canara Bank,
ARM Branch,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the second respondent in fixing market value as Rs.5,26,78,922/- and
consequent demand of deficit stamp duty of Rs.34,17,179/- under section 47(A)
of the Indian Stamp Act dated 08.06.2021 and impugned Form-I Notice issued
under Rule 4 of the Tamilnadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
Instruments) Rules, 1968 dated 08.06.2021 by the 1st respondent and quash the
same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to release the
original Sale deed registered in Document No.2980/2021 dated 29.04.2021 and
kept as pending document in No.P29/2021 to the petitioner forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.R.Kannan
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Prakash
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.C.Karthik
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorarified mandamus
seeking records of the second respondent / Sub Registrar, Nagalnaickenpatti
Sub-Registrar Office, Dindigul, whereby, the second respondent has fixed the
market value of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition at
Rs.5,26,78,922/- and had consequently directed the petitioner herein to pay
deficit stamp duty of Rs.34,17,179/- under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp
Act. The said order by the second respondent was dated 08.06.2021. The
petitioner was also issued with a Form-I notice under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1986 on
08.06.2021 by the first respondent. The petitioner seeks to quash both the order
and the said notice and also seeks a further direction to release the original sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
deed registered as document No.2980 of 2021 dated 29.04.2021 kept pending
as Document No.P29/2021.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had
stated that the third respondent / Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, ARM
Branch, Madurai, had issued a notice of sale of the property on public auction
on 06.02.2021. The sale was scheduled on 10.03.2021 and rescheduled to
26.03.2021. The petitioner participated in the auction and he had quoted a total
sum of Rs.38,62,000/- and was declared as the successful bidder on 26.03.2021.
He had remitted the entire sale consideration to the third respondent. The third
respondent also issued certificate of sale by order dated 08.04.2021. The
petitioner presented the certificate of sale for registration on 28.04.2021. It was
registered on 07.06.2021 as Document No.2980 of 2021 by the second
respondent. Subsequently, by a further order, it was kept pending as Document
No.P29/2021. The petitioner was then issued with a notice under Section 47A
of the Indian Stamps Act, directing him to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.
34,17,179/-. The petitioner was given an option to give a representation in this
regard to the District Registrar (Registrations), Madurai. The petitioner had
given such a representation protesting against the demand of additional stamp
duty by representation dated 24.06.2021. In the said representation, the
petitioner had raised issues on facts stating that the guideline values as insisted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
by the respondent are not correct and that the adjacent land which was also
simultaneously brought up for auction on the very same date had been valued at
a much lesser rate of that of the petitioner's lands.
3. Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the petitioner had invited the
attention of this Court to a judgment reported in 2018 (3) CTC 513, [R.Mohan
(died) Vs the Sub Registrar (District Registrar, South Chennai) and others]
wherein a learned Single judge had dealt with a very similar issue of additional
stamp duty to be paid under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, with respect
to a property purchased through public auction conducted by the Income Tax
authorities. After referring to a catena of judgments, the learned Single Judge
had finally directed that the documents should be registered on the value for
which it was purchased in a public auction and had also issued a positive
direction to the Sub Registrar therein to release the document. A counter
affidavit had been filed by both the first and second respondent. They both
stated that the land value is Rs.1273/- per Sq.mtr and on that basis owing to the
surrounding area, the total value of the property was arrived at Rs.5,27,64,250/-
and stamp duty was determined. On that basis the petitioner was called upon to
pay the deficit stamp duty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader who argued on behalf of
the respondent insisted that the petitioner should pay the stamp duty as on the
basis of the guideline value and not on the basis of the auction price for which
the petitioner had purchased. The learned Additional Government Pleader
pointed out the surrounding lands and stated that the property of the petitioner
is within the city limits and not in the rural area. It is therefore insisted that the
demand made on the petitioner is proper. However, in the representation given
by the petitioner herein, the judgment referred upon had not been referred by
the petitioner herein.
5. The petitioner may therefore, give a representation in addition to the
representation already given, by enclosing the judgment reported in 2018 (3)
CTC 513 (cited above) and the authority may examine the ratio laid down in
the said judgment and then pass necessary orders on the representation of the
petitioner herein. The authority must be aware that the judgment of a Court has
binding effect and should be followed by all authorities. Therefore, after
obtaining necessary legal opinion may proceed further to register the sale deed,
if the judgment is deemed binding and take necessary steps to release the
document to the petitioner herein. The entire exercise shall be completed
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioner may be put on notice and thereafter a considered order may be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
passed. If it is still insisted that additional stamp duty will have to be paid even
then a considered order may be passed. It is only appropriate that an order with
reasons is passed by the respondent herein.
6. This writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
27.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
pnn
To
1.The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) /
Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Office of the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Registration Department,
Madurai.
2.The Sub Registrar,
Nagalnaickenpatti Sub-Registrar Office,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
pnn
W.P(MD)No.5885 of 2022
27.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
