SAYIRA BANU Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR STAMPS TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that the prop'erty bearing plot No. 4, Dowhith Pallivasal Lane, Labbai Patti Street comprised in new T. S. No. 54/4, Block No. 31, New Ward No. 8, Trichy, measuring an extent of 2142 sq. ft, was purchased by her for a sale consideration of Rs. 6,42,600/ -. Her vendor executed the sale deed dated 6. 5. 2004 and the same was registered by the second respondent as docu'ment No. 1411 of 2004 on 6. 5. 2004 itself without any objection.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY, according to the peti'tioner, the first respondent, in his office pro'ceedings in S. R. No. 1625/04 dated 5. 7. 2004, issued a notice in Form I under Section 47-A (1) and (3) of the Indian stamp Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) alleging that the guideline value of the said property is Rs. 46,41,714/- and a sum of Rs. 3,71,344/-should be paid as the stamp duty, but, the petitioner valued the property only for rs. 6, 42, 600/- and paid a sum of Rs. 52,010/ -. By the impugned proceedings, the peti'tioner was called upon to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 3,19,334/ -. The petitioner was also called upon to submit her explanation within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

(3.) IN the decision rendered in District Col-lector, Erode district, Erode v. M. Pon'nusamy (supra), in paragraph 19, it is observed as follows: "19. It is seen, in this case there is no deci'sion on the part of the Registering Authority that he had reason to believe that there was an attempt on the part of the parties to un'dervalue the subject matter of the transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty. The only reasons apparently found from his memo, that it is contrary to the guidelines, cannot be the ground for referring the matter to the District collector under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, espe'cially after having registered the document without any demur and on his satisfying about the market value. "