P. MAHALINGAM Vs. REGISTRAR OF DOCUMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners in these writ petitions are the husband and wife. The writ petitions are filed for a direction against the respondents 1 and 2 the registration authorities to release the registered sale deeds dated 27.02.2006 bearing document Nos. P.200600155 and 200600156 executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners respectively.

(2.) THE petitioners have purchased plot Nos. 16, 17, 26, 27 and 18, 19, 24, 25 respectively from the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries and Commerce Department. The plots were allotted by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce Department on 28.03.2002 and an assignment deed was executed on 20.01.2006. The third respondent department represented by the Joint Director has executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners for the value of Rs. 3,45,000/- and the same was registered but the document was not released on the ground that the petitioners have to pay stamp duty for the entire market value of the property at 8%.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the present guideline value is not applicable since the allotment was made in the year 2002 and value was fixed by the Government and there is no suppression of the valuation. So question of undervaluation does not arise. The amount of sale price was also received by the Government. As per G.O. Ms. No. 141, dated 30.09.2003, the price has to be fixed for 50% stamp duty. The case of the petitioners is that the first and second respondents cannot take a stand that the exemption given under the said Government Order is applicable only in respect of the sale deeds executed by the SIPCOT and SIDCO. According to the petitioners, as per the order of this Court in writ petition in W.P. No. 2987 of 2005, the guideline value is not applicable in respect of sale deeds executed by the Government Department. The further question that is to be decided is that after the allotment of the plots the petitioners have put up construction and therefore, the petitioners cannot be compelled to pay more stamp duty for the construction also since the buildings constructed belonging to the petitioners which were not the subject matter of transfer. The petitioners have made several representations to the first respondent to release the documents in respect of document Nos. P.200600155 and 200600156 respectively. Inspite of that, the respondents have not released the documents, therefore, the writ petitions have been filed for a direction as stated above on various legal grounds including that when once the Government executed the sale deeds by receiving the consideration as fixed by the Government on the date of allotment, there is no question of suppression of valuation, that the plots were alloted to the petitioners and the Government has fixed the market value and therefore, it is not open to the Registration Department to question the valuation and that the third respondent has executed sale deeds for the actual consideration received and therefore, the demand of excess stamp duty is not permissible in law.