ORDER :- The petitioner seeks for the issue of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to return the sale deed dated 27-8-2002 executed by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in favour of the petitioner herein and registered on 25-9-2002 under document No. 2827/2002 at the office of the third respondent. 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition : The petitioner is admittedly one of the allottees of the plot by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The said Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had set up the Maraimalai Nagar Industrial Complex and divided the said property into various plots for Industrial Development with all amenities such as roads, drains and other common betterment facilities. The petitioner is one of the applicants and the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority fixed the total price of the said plot Nos. 3 and 4 at Rs. 12,79,440/-. The petitioner had initially paid a sum of Rs. 3,21,000/- on 18-3-1996 and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration in eight equal half yearly instalments. The possession was handed over to the petitioner on 8-7-1996 itself for construction of industrial building. The petitioner further submits that in terms of the agreement, the petitioner had completed the payment of instalments and the sale deed was executed on 25-9-2002 under document No. 2827/2002. 3. While so, by communication dated 12-11-2002, the second respondent had demanded a sum of Rs. 3,86,415/-being the differential stamp duty payable on the document. A perusal of the said letter issued under Form No. 1 shows that while the value given in the document is Rs. 12,79,440, the valuation in terms of the guideline is Rs. 42,51,851/-. In short, the demand of the second respondent is that the differential stamp duty on the basis of the guideline value on the date of the registration of the document should be paid by the respondents. The total claim is Rs. 3,86,415/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed the above writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of E. Padmanabhan, J. in R. Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 2 CTC 329 . The total claim is Rs. 3,86,415/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed the above writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of E. Padmanabhan, J. in R. Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 2 CTC 329 . Learned counsel contends that the valuation as on the date of the execution of the lease cum sale deed alone should be taken into account by the Registering Authority and not the valuation as on the date of the registration of the sale deed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Government Advocate contends that as far as the third respondent is concerned, the Registering Authority is only concerned with the valuation as on the date of the execution and the registration of the conveyance deed and not the lease cum sale agreement executed between the two parties. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both parties. 8. Similar issue arose for consideration in the Judgment cited above. E. Padmanabhan, J. had dealt with a case of registration of sale deed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board enters into the lease cum agreement and the allottees pay the monthly instalments to the Housing Board spread over a decade under such agreement. On the completion of payment of the monthly instalments representing entire sale consideration, the sale deed is presented for registration. The learned Judge held that insistence of the payment of stamp duty on the market value prevailing on the date of presentation of the document was not correct and that statutory bodies like Housing Board will not be receiving any excess amount than what has been actually recited as sale consideration in the deed of conveyance. 9. The facts of the present case are also similar and the executant of the document in this case also being a statutory authority viz., Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. It cannot be stated nor is it contended that the actual sale consideration received by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was more than what is actually quoted in the document. 9. The facts of the present case are also similar and the executant of the document in this case also being a statutory authority viz., Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. It cannot be stated nor is it contended that the actual sale consideration received by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was more than what is actually quoted in the document. As long as hire purchase transactions and payment of consideration by instalments are legally permissible, then the value for the purpose of stamp duty for conveyance has to be determined only on the basis of value as on the date of hire purchase or lease-cum-sale agreements and not as on the date of presentation of the conveyance deed for registration. This is not a case of dispute between private parties, whereby the parties enter into an agreement for sale very much earlier and execute the sale deed on a later date, after resolving any dispute between themselves either by themselves or by a decree of the Court on a suit for Specific Performance in which different issues may arise for consideration. This is a case of lease-cum-sale agreement that too at the instance of statutory bodies fixing a particular value as the sale consideration and agree to receive the consideration by instalments. Therefore, in a case of this type, the Registrar cannot go beyond the valuation of the property as on the date of lease-cum-sale agreement. 10. With the result, the difference in the stamp duty on the basis of the prevailing market value cannot be sustained. The petitioner is entitled to succeed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.