SUB REGISTRAR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT Vs. R RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. D. Rekha, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the appellants and Mr. C. Jagdish, learned counsel for the first respondent.

(2.) THE present respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 7596 of 2005 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 i. e. , appellants 1 to 4 herein, to accept the stamp duty of Rs. 1,82,000/- paid by her and not to levy additional stamp duty in respect of document No. 2875 of 2001. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 placed reliance on G. O. (Ms) No. 64, dated 19/2/1996, which relates to transactions made by the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO ). The learned single Judge, while issuing a writ of mandamus, has observed that the Registering authority cannot demand more stamp duty on the basis of guideline value or any notional market value ignoring the actual sale consideration indicated in the document. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the State and other departmental authorities in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) FROM the averments made in the writ petition it is apparent that Respondent No. 6, namely, the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, allotted a site in favour of M/s. Kopson Products and registered a document on 6/12/1986. Thereafter, the present petitioner purchased the said property from M/s. Kopson Products under a sale deed dated 13/12/2001 and registered as Document No. 2875 of 2001 in the office of the first respondent, wherein consideration was shown to be Rs. 14 lakhs. The stamp duty at 13% of the value was paid. The writ petitioner was expecting that after registration the document would be released in his favour but, to his surprise, he received a demand notice dated 31/10/2002 from the Sub-Registrar intimating the writ petitioner that the document was pending due to insufficiency of stamp duty. The writ petitioner was called upon to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,54,557/- towards additional stamp duty calculated on the basis of the guideline value of 2001-2002, which was higher than the stated consideration of Rs. 14 lakhs. It is further asserted that the writ petitioner had written a letter to the Sub Registrar to release the document, but of no avail. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was filed for issuing appropriate writ or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Sub Registrar and other officials to accept the stamp duty of Rs. 1,82,000/- already paid based on actual sale consideration and not to levy additional stamp duty based on guideline value. Learned single Judge issued a direction to accept the sale deed on the basis of the valuation recited in the document by observing: -