ORDER: A charitable organisation providing food and shelter and rehabilitating the disabled, orphans and destitutes has approached this Court for an order to get the sale deed released and to direct the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the misconduct of the fourth respondent and to take appropriate proceedings in the accordance with law including to award compensation to the petitioner for the inordinate delay in releasing the document. 2. The petitioner is a charitable trust with the objects, inter alia, to educate and rehabilitate the disabled, orphans and destitutes who are lying uncared for on the roadsides in the city of Chennai and its suburbs, to give them food and shelter and to treat them in the nearby hospitals and also to rehabilitate them. The petitioner Trust has been recognized by the Directorate of Rehabilitation of the Disabled, Government of Tamil Nadu and they have been given the benefit under Sec.80-G of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioner, the Trust is running a Home called “Anbagaam” at No.11, Perianna Mudali Street, Chennai-1. As the said accommodation was inadequate with the number of inmates increasing day-by-day, the petitioner Trust, with the benevolvent contribution from the public, acquired a land of an extent of 1.61 acres in S.Nos.377/1, 378, 380 and 381/2 of No.147, Thirunilai Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thirvallur District for constructing a permanent Home with suitable amenities. The said property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.80,600 and the sale deed in respect thereof was presented for registration before the third respondent on 23.4.2001, who took the document as pending Document No.229 of 2001 after receiving a sum of Rs.910 towards registration fee etc. According to the petitioner, it was represented at that time by the third respondent that the document could be released after side inspection by their officials within about ten days time. However, after repeated requests on several occasions and in view of the urgency and dire need to shift the inmates after construction of a building, the land was inspected on 30.5.2001. Even thereafter the request of the petitioner to release the document to take necessary follow-up to. While similar sales executed in the same village were released on the same day or immediately thereafter, the third respondent, for obvious consideration, was withholding the document presented by the petitioner. Even thereafter the request of the petitioner to release the document to take necessary follow-up to. While similar sales executed in the same village were released on the same day or immediately thereafter, the third respondent, for obvious consideration, was withholding the document presented by the petitioner. The petitioner came to understand that the third respondent has purposely sent an incorrect report to the second respondent in reference to the market value of the land so as to withhold the document. Ultimately, the petitioner's counsel was constrained to issue a lawyer's notice, bringing to the notice of the third respondent the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, directing the release of the document for reference within three weeks from the date of presentation of the document. The petitioner was therefore left with no other alternative but to move this Court for the above direction. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated as follows: “The happenings at the Sub-Registrar Office are open secret and a honest and genuine person cannot get lawful treatment in the hands of the officials in the Registration Department. In view of such large level indiscipline and severe malpractice, it is also appropriate to hold proper enquiry and to take appropriate steps to abate such malpractice in the interest of public.” “But, the third respondent, for obvious reasons, had not considered the request of the petitioner as well as the directions of the superior officers.” “I have also come to know that the third respondent by sheet of his office, is making extraneous benefits to him and acting illegally. In the premises the third respondent has been impleaded in his personal name also as fourth respondent.” 4. The fourth respondent has fixed a counter affidavit stating that the document when presented for registration, did not contain the chitta adangal FMB and therefore, it could not be ascertained as to the nature and value of the land. According to him, on receipt of the document, the second respondent had to conduct the site inspection and personally ascertain the nature and the value of the land in respect of which the sale deed had been lodged for the purpose of registration. According to him, on receipt of the document, the second respondent had to conduct the site inspection and personally ascertain the nature and the value of the land in respect of which the sale deed had been lodged for the purpose of registration. The inspection of the property by the second respondent was conducted on 30.5.2001 when it was noted that the land is an agricultural land, but cultivation is not carried on. He has denied the allegations made against him. He admits that due to error in the FMB sketch provided by the petitioner, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent and a report has already been submitted on 26.7.2001. On receipt of the order from the second respondent, a communication was sent to the petitioner on 28.9.2001 stating that the document is ready for delivery. He has denied the allegation that the respondents have not discharged their duties with oblique motives. He has specifically stated as follows: “Petitioner cannot, as a matter or right, demand the release of the document without the value of the property being ascertained and certified by the superior officer.” According to him, he has acted in a bona fide manner in his official capacity and has initiated all steps to expedite the process and release of the document. The document cannot be released without verification of its value. Other documents referred to by the petitioner were released because there was no ambiguity in the FMB sketch. He has therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, there is no requirement for providing chitta adangal and FMB sketch. However, they were produced by the petitioner. He further says that it is not within the powers of the fourth respondent to agitate upon the nature and value of the land de hors the contents of the document presented for registration. The inspecting authority has categorically found that it is a waste land (tharisu) and even thereafter, the fourth respondent has sent a proposal for dual valuation on 18.6.2001. The fourth respondent had dishonestly and with ulterior motive stated therein that the value of the surrounding land is Rs.10 per sq.ft. (S.No.471) and recommended for fixing the value of the land in reference at Rs.11 per sq.ft. The fourth respondent had dishonestly and with ulterior motive stated therein that the value of the surrounding land is Rs.10 per sq.ft. (S.No.471) and recommended for fixing the value of the land in reference at Rs.11 per sq.ft. The fourth respondent is well aware that the land in S.No.471 is a housing site. It is only thereafter when the second respondent pulled up the fourth respondent for sending contradictory statements the fourth respondent has sent a communication dated 26.7.2001 stating that he has been mislead by the FMS sketch. However, it is only a fabricated document to suit this convenience when there is no ambiguity or mistake. The petitioner specifically states that then a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court was brought to the notice of the respondents and a xerox copy of the decision was given, they were not prepared to receive the same stating that they knew what they have to do and therefore, he says that whoever is responsible for the misconduct, has to be severely dealt with by this Court and also liable to be punished for committing contempt of the Court and wilfully disobeying the decision of this Court. He further says that the fourth respondent, apart from sending his person to his counsel office, also absent one Ramakrishnan to his office on 29.9.2001 and directed them to meet Dharman, the second respondent, immediately. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the fourth respondent as well as the Government Advocate and considered the matter carefully. 7. Sec.3 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a charging Section, which reads as follows: “ 3.Instruments chargeable with duty: Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that Schedule as the proper duty there for respectively.” Sec.10 indicates as to how the stamp duty should be paid. The relevant portion reads as follows: “ 10. Duties how to be paid: (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all duties with which any instruments are chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indicated on such instruments, by means of stamps”. The relevant portion reads as follows: “ 10. Duties how to be paid: (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all duties with which any instruments are chargeable shall be paid, and such payment shall be indicated on such instruments, by means of stamps”. Sec.27 of the Act mandates that the consideration of the market value and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty shall be fully and truly set forth therein. Sec.35 says that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence or acted upon registered or authenticated unless such instrument is duly stamped. Sec.47-A of the Act sets out the procedure to be followed with reference to the under-valued documents. The Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 has been framed under Sec.47-A of the Central Act. Rule 3 enables the registering officer, for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, to make such enquiries as he may deem fit. He may elicit from the parties concerned any information having a bearing on the subject and call for and examine any records kept with any public officer or authority. Sub-rule (4) stated as follows: “(4) The registering officer may also look into the” Guidelines Register “containing the value of properties supplied to them for the purpose of verifying the market value”. Explanation: The “Guidelines Register” supplied to the officers is intended merely to assist them to ascertain prima facie, whether the market value has been truly set forth, in the instruments. The entries made therein regarding the value of properties cannot be a substitute for market price. Such entries will not foreclose the enquiry of the Collector under Sec.47-A of the Act or fetter the discretion of the authorities concerned to satisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the value expressed in the documents.” 8. If the registering authority, on the basis of this enquiry, has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he has to refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property after registering the said instrument. 9. If the registering authority, on the basis of this enquiry, has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he has to refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property after registering the said instrument. 9. The Supreme Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. Park View Enterprises (2001)1 S.C.C. 742 observed as follows: “A plain reading of this Sec.47-A thus categorically provides the methods to be taken recourse to in the event of instrument of conveyance stands under valued. The heading of the Section is very apposite with the content and indicative of the true intent of the legislature. The heading reads as under: “ 47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc. undervalued how to be dealt with:” The body of this Section, in any event expressly records a situation after registration and not at a stage prior thereto: “The legislative intent as expressed in Sec.35 stands clear to the effect that refusal to register is not permissible in terms therewith.” “The powers of the Collector as specified therein, stand in an unambiguous situation as the final authority in the matter, of assessment of the duty leviable thereon and threat is precisely the reason as to why the State Legislature engrafted Sec.47-A and specifically records in the statute that steps are to be taken only after registration of such an instrument. It can thus conclusively be and that there is existing a categorical expression of legislation intent in regard to the registration is effected subject to the condition as provided in the statute itself with proper safeguard being taken note of by the legislature and contra expression of opinion would run counter to the legislative intent which is otherwise not permissible in law.” In reference to the rule referred to above, their lordships held that Rule 3(3) authorises the registering officer for the purpose of assessment of the market value but the Rule by itself does not suggest that the registration of a document is dependent on the recording of satisfaction pertaining to the evidence received in terms therewith. In terms of this rule, the circular dated 9.12.1988 issued by the Government directing the registration only after collection of duty was held to be invalid by the High Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court. 10. In terms of this rule, the circular dated 9.12.1988 issued by the Government directing the registration only after collection of duty was held to be invalid by the High Court and was upheld by the Supreme Court. 10. In District Collector, Erode District v. N.Ponnusamy District Collector, Erode District v. N.Ponnusamy (2001)2 C.T.C. 449 , a Division Bench of this Court in which I was a party, has taken the view that it is not open to the authorities to say that since there is no time limit set out under the Act, they can withhold the document for an unlimited period and refer it for valuation at any time they choose. Absence of any provision for time implies that reference follows registration and the plain language cannot be interpreted in any other manner. The reference is to follow registration subject to the time taken for the procedural formalities, but in any case, it shall not exceed three weeks from the date of registration. In the said judgment we have confirmed the view of the learned single Judge prescribing the time limit for release or return or reference. 11. A Division Bench of this Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. Chandrasekaran (1975)2 MLJ. 89, while holding that stamp duty is a duty on an instrument, held as follows: “ In the working of the Act, great caution should be taken in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression. Having regard to the object of the Act, we are inclined to think that normally, consideration stated as the market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exist which suggest fraudulent evasion. Even in such a case, we trust that disputes will not be raised for petty sums. Unless the difference is considerable or seizable and it appears patent that the amount mentioned in the document is a gross under-value no disputation as to the value is expected to be started.” From the above in specific reference to this particular case, the question is whether it is open to the Sub Registrar to go into the correctness of the market value stated in the instrument. The registering officer for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, can make such enquiries as he may deem fit. The registering officer for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, can make such enquiries as he may deem fit. He can call for any information or examine records kept with any public officer or authority. He may also look into the guidelines register containing the value of the property supplied to them for the purpose of verifying the market value. However, this exercise should be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of registration. If he is not satisfied with the market value set forth in the instrument, he has no choice except to refer the same to the collection for determining the market value. 12. The petitioner Trust is a charitable service organisation founded to help the disabled orphans and destitutes who are lying uncared for on the roadsides of the city of Chennai and its suburbs. With the benevolent contribution from the public, the Trust acquired an extent of 1.61 acres of land and presented the document for registration on 23.4.2001. But, the document was registered as pending document and was released after the writ petition was filed and after receipt of the interim direction on 8.10.2001. Admittedly, the document was kept pending registration for more than five months. The question is whether the fourth respondent has reasons to withhold the release of the document. The case of the petitioner is that the conduct of the fourth respondent is deliberate and that he has failed to discharge his official duty for extraneous benefit by abuse of his office and that is why the third respondent is impleaded in this personnel capacity as the fourth respondent herein on the specific allegations against him. 13. The identification for withholding the document by the fourth respondent is as follows: (i) The document when presented, did not contain chitta adangal and FMB and therefore, the nature and the value of the land could not be ascertained. (ii) Personal site inspection has to be conducted to ascertain the nature and the value of the land. (iii) Report was awaited from the second respondent on the proposal made by the third respondent for dual valuation. 14. In this case, the document value is Rs.80,600. It is not in dispute that the guideline value for the said land is Rs.77,602. (iii) Report was awaited from the second respondent on the proposal made by the third respondent for dual valuation. 14. In this case, the document value is Rs.80,600. It is not in dispute that the guideline value for the said land is Rs.77,602. The maximum value of land in the said village is Rs.60,000 per acre and the minimum value if Rs.29,100 per acre. It is also not in dispute that there is no duty cast on the person presenting the document to provide chitta adangal and FMB sketch. In this case, the FMB sketch was made available to the fourth respondent along with the presentation of the document on 28.4.2001. On receipt of the document, the third respondent appears to have requested the second respondent to conduct the site inspection and personality ascertain the nature and the value of the land. The inspection has been done after one month and seven days after repeated requests by the petitioner. In the inspection, it was clearly found that the land is a waste land (tharisu) and that there is no cultivation. Once it is found that it is an agricultural land, there is absolutely no cause of action for the fourth respondent to submit a proposal for dual valuation. The copy of the said proposal is filed before me, which speaks volumes of an attempt on the part of the fourth respondent to further delay the release of the document. In this proposal dated 18.6.2001, the heading shows that it is in reference to double valuation. The relevant columns and entries are as follows: (1) Sub-Registrar Office — Sub Registrar, Thiruvottiur,Chennai-19. (2) Village — Thirunilai (3) Pending Document No. — P 229/2001 (4) Survey Numbers — 377/1,378,380,381 (5) Extent of the land — 1.41 acres (6) Value of the document as shown — Rs.80,600 (7) Guideline value in reference to the document in question — Rs.8,500.62 per cent Survey Number Agricultural Land Value per acre 377/1 Rs.48,200 378 -do- 380 -do- 381 -do- Under column 1 in reference to the particulars of the survey number and the guidelines value, a separate annexure has been given, which reads as follows: ANNEXURE (1) Document : P 229/2001 (2) Document Value : Rs.80,000 (3) Guideline Value : Rs.77,602 (4) Previous Registration Value : (It is written as nil and subsequently, struck off) (5) Surrounding Land Value : Rs.10 per sq.ft. (Highest value and S.No.) : (S.No.471) (6) Highest Value in the Village : Rs.60,000 per acre (Rs.12 per sq.ft.) (7) Lowest Value in the Village : Rs.29,100 per acre (Rs.8 per sq.ft.) (8) Recommendation of the Sub-Registrar : Recommended for fixing the value at Rs.11 per sq.ft. since in the survey number, previous registration is on the basis of sq.ft. 15. It is this proposal of the fourth respondent which was found to be contradictory by the second respondent himself in his communication dated 20.6.2001 wherein he has pulled up the third respondent with reference to the guideline value to send the complete particulars as to why the recommendation is contrary to the guidelines value on the encumbrance certificate. Obviously, the second respondent had taken objection to the third respondent referring to an entirely different survey number, namely S.No.471 in reference to the value of the lands in question where the highest value is entirely different. It is thereafter, the fourth respondent has come down to concede in his letter dated 26.7.2001 stating that the FMB survey particulars are not clear and therefore, instead of S.No.372, he has written it as S.No.471 and therefore, the guideline value for S.No.471 was wrongly sent in the proposal. He further cleanly says that as on date, in the village map, in S.No.377, there are no particulars of previous sale deeds and he regrets for the mistake. 16. If we see the FMB plan furnished by the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent before this Court, the sketch is so clear and leaves no room for doubt as to the reference of S.No.377, S.No.471 is nowhere found in the FMB sketch. Therefore, from the background of the case, it is clear that inspite of the inspection report showing the land as agricultural land and though the value of the documents is shown below the guideline value, without accepting the valuation and releasing the document, the fourth respondent has once again sent the proposal for dual valuation on the specious area, recommending for a higher valuation on the basis of a different S.No.471. The contention of the counsel for dual valuation in reference to S.No.471, is very difficult to accept and believe. Inspite of the inspection and the report dated 30.5.2001, the proposal for dual valuation was sent on 18.6.2001 by the fourth respondent. The contention of the counsel for dual valuation in reference to S.No.471, is very difficult to accept and believe. Inspite of the inspection and the report dated 30.5.2001, the proposal for dual valuation was sent on 18.6.2001 by the fourth respondent. In the legal notice dated 19.7.2001, the fourth respondent's attention was invited to the release of documents in reference to the same village registered subsequently and his error in keeping the document pending without reference. Inspite of an explanation being called from the fourth respondent by the second respondent dated 20.7.2001 and the purported notice of the second respondent dated 18.9.2001, the document was not released. Only after a direction was issued in the writ petition in the interim application on 3.10.2001, the document came to be released. 17. When the matter was being argued and when it was part-heard on 1.11.2001, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the first respondent has called for a report in his communication dated 26.9.2001 in reference to the complaint of the advocate dated 12.9.2001. Strangely this is put on record the purpose of saying that the enquiry has already commenced against the fourth respondent as prayed for in the writ petition, and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition. But, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, this is an after-thought, since the communication calling for the so called report was sent to the petitioner only on 2.11.2001. Therefore, there is a clear attempt on the part of the respondents to make the writ petition infructuous. In the said circumstances, the petitioner prays for a specific order for compensation for the inordinate delay caused in releasing the document and the mental and physical agony as well as the harassment caused to the petitioner and further prays that the prayer can be suitable modified to render justice to the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the fourth respondent has violated the direction contained in the Division Bench judgment to release the document within a period of three weeks or refer it if there is a doubt that the market value has been under-valued. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the fourth respondent has violated the direction contained in the Division Bench judgment to release the document within a period of three weeks or refer it if there is a doubt that the market value has been under-valued. The stand of the fourth respondent in this regard is that the petitioner cannot demand the release of the document without the value of the property being ascertained and certified by the superior officer, and his alleged oral assertion before the petitioner that they are not bound by the direction of the Division Bench judgment, if it is true, is clearly bordering on contempt. A Division Bench of this Court, in S.Baskar v. The Director General of Police S.Baskar v. The Director General of Police (2001)2 T.L.N.J. 181 has held that violation of the guidelines regarding arrest laid down by the Supreme Court is a contempt. 18. Therefore, even though the document since has been released, it has been withheld without a reasonable cause and justification. There was no reference to the District Collector under Sec.47-A if there was any bona fide doubt regarding the market value. In this case, there are no bona fides in the claim of the fourth respondent that there was a doubt regarding the market value. On the contrary, it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the fourth respondent to create a doubt for the purpose of the case and to justify the delay. The fourth respondent has, in sheer abuse of his power as the registering officer, withheld the release of the document. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation by way of exemplary cost of Rs.10,000 for the deliberate withholding of the document and the hardship and mental agony caused by the petitioner payable by the third and fourth respondents. The first respondent is directed to proceed with the departmental enquiry initiated against the 3rd and 4th respondent. 19. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed with cost against the third and fourth respondents. Consequently, W.M.P.No.26147 of 2001 are closed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.