G NATARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to Re. No. 1722/98 dated 17-3-1999 on the file of the 3rd respondent to quash the same and to direct the respondents to return the registered document bearing No. 357/98 dated 24-1-1997 executed in favour of the petitioner by the executant Mr. Navaneethammal and also to direct the second and third respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the mental agony and suffereings on account of the abuse of the statutory power vested in them.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner presented a document dated 24-1-1997 before the second respondent for the purpose of purchasing 1/5th undivided interest in respect of land comprised in village No. 66, Nethapettai village. Survey No. 123/2 measuring 47 cents, 233/3 measuring 37 cents, 263/77 measuring 44 cents, 232 measuring 44 cents, 51/3 measuring 22 cents, 167/3/36 measuring 35 cents, 183/2 measuring cents; that after getting the necessary information from the second respondent, the petitioner ascertained the guidelines value in respect of the property from the office of the second respondent, according to whom the value was Rs.74,950/-; that the l/5th undivided interest value comes to Rs.14,990/-; that after the presentation of the document, the second respondent kept the document pending Document No.4/97 and called upon the petitioner to produce the field measurement book by a letter dated 17-11-1997; that after the presentation of the said documents. the second respondent instead of registering and returning the document to the petitioner, sent the document to the third respondent under S. 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 after registering the same as document No. 357 of 1998; that the third respondent sent a communication stating that the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.76,300/- towards stamp charges and since the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.87,200/- by way of stamp charges, he had to pay a sum of Rs.2,67,190/- towards the difference in stamp duty; that the above said communication was followed by another communication dated Nil signed on 12-5-1998 by the third respondent in RC. No. 1879/98 stating that there will be an enquiry on 22-5-1998 at 11 a.m. in connection with the ascertainment of valuation and stamp duty; that the petitioner sent a notice through his counsel on 20-5-1998 pointing out that the letter dated 19-2-1998 is unconscionable; that the third respondent without considering the objections stated in the counsels reply dated 20-5-1998 sent another communication dated 22-5-1998 in which the total guidelines value of the property was mentioned as Rs.53,438/-, the 1/ 5th undivided share value as per the executant is Rs.14,990/-, the total stamp duty payable is Rs.6,417/-, the duty already paid by way of non judicial stamp paper comes to Rs.1820/- and the balance stamp duty payable comes to Rs.4,597/-; that there is a complete variation between the value furnished by the notice dated 19-2-1998 and 22-5-1998; that the petitioner sent another notice dated 11-6-1998 to the third respondent calling upon him to return the document and the second respondent has deliberately furnished false guidelines value to extract more stamp duty from the petitioner though the petitioner has purchased the l/5th undivided interest in the property; that the third respondent sent a communication calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,299/- towards 50% of the stamp duty payable and to get the document released; that this court has held in the decision reported in 1998 (3) C.T.C. 66 that once the document is registered and when the deficit stamp duty is paid, it is the duty of the authorities to recover the deficit amount by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) On the part of the respondents, no counter would be filed, but the learned Government Advocate on the writ side would seek permission of the Court to argue on instructions and the same having been granted, would appear on behalf of the respondents as a whole and therefore the following order is passed in consideration of the pleadings of the writ petition, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both.