SUB-REGISTRAR, NATHAM Vs. ALAGURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The official respondents in W.P(MD)No.14348 of 2017 are the appellants.

(2.) The respondent/writ petitioner said to have purchased a property bearing Registered Document No.1311 of 2006 on 06.07.2006 in the office of the first appellant herein. The land value was at Rs.31,500/- and also paid the stamp duty of Rs.2,520/- and in the description of the property, it has been indicated as 'agricultural land'. However, the first appellant herein had forwarded the same to the second appellant, who in-turn, vide communication, dated 15.10.2009, has observed that the said instrument has been under valued. The reason for stating so is that there is a possibility of converting the agricultural land in question as a house site in the near future and accordingly, the second appellant has fixed the land value at Rs.11,24,880/- as against the value found in the sale deed at Rs.31,500/- and as a consequence, a sum of Rs.87,430/- was demanded as a deficit stamp duty. The respondent/writ petitioner challenging the legality of the said order, filed an appeal before the third appellant herein with a delay and it was rejected on 14.06.2011 stating that no sufficient reasons have been cited for condoning the said delay and challenging the said order, the Writ Petition was filed and it was entertained and notices were ordered.

(3.) The second appellant herein/second respondent has filed the counter- affidavit in the writ petition stating among other things that the respondent/writ petitioner had purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of 60 cents of wet lands in Survey No.211/10B of Natham Town and the value of the property was indicated at Rs.31,500/-, on which, a stamp duty of Rs.2,520/- was also paid and it was also registered as document bearing No.1311/2006. It was found that though the lands were shown as wet lands, streets have already been formed and therefore, the highest rate of Rs.48/- per sq.ft was applied and the respondent/writ petitioner was called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.97,396/- and on refusal to pay the said amount, it was referred to under Section 47 A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. However, the second appellant herein, in Form I, as per Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Undervaluation Rules, had issued notice to the respondent/writ petitioner asking to show-cause as to why the provisional fixation of the deficit stamp duty of Rs.97,936/- shall not be confirmed. Since, no reply was received, but taking into consideration the fact that the wet land has been converted into house site, deficit stamp duty of Rs.87,430/- had been fixed and it cannot be found fault with.