Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2118 (MAD)

State of Tamil Nadu v. Janab Habeeb Jan. K.

2007-07-10

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. The correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2005 passed in W.P.No.4087 of 2005 is put in issue in this writ appeal preferred by the State and its officials. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal can be briefly stated thus: The respondent herein/writ petitioner, based on an agreement for sale deed dated 04.12.1986 for the purchase of a flat, obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S.No.219 of 1997 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and got the sale deed executed through Court by filing an execution petition. The sale consideration quoted in the sale agreement is Rs.1,08,000/-. When the sale deed was presented for registration, Sub-Registrar, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli, the fourth appellant herein, after registration, referred the document under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act to the second appellant herein. The second appellant in turn fixed the market value at Rs.3,50,000/- adopting the guideline value prevailing as on the date of registration of the sale deed, after overruling the objections raised by the respondent herein/writ petitioner and issued the impugned order dated 29.07.2004 bearing S.R.No.1871/2004 fixing the stamp duty at Rs.24,448/-. The said order was challenged by the respondent herein/writ petitioner in the above said writ petition. The learned Single Judge took the view that the market value prevailing on the date of agreement alone shall be the basis on which stamp duty should be levied and that the State was not justified in demanding payment of stamp duty on the escalated guideline value prevailing as on the date of registration of the sale deed and consequently quashed the impugned order of the second appellant dated 29.07.2004. As against the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State and its officials have come on appeal in this writ appeal. 3. We have heard the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and also by the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records available in the form of typed-set of papers. 4. 3. We have heard the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and also by the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records available in the form of typed-set of papers. 4. The challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this writ appeal is made on the contention that there was no illegality or infirmity in assessing the market value of the property for collection of stamp duty under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act based on the prevailing guideline value of the property as on the date of execution of the instrument, namely the sale deed in the instant case, if not the date of presentation of the instrument for registration. We are not in a position to accept the above said contention raised on behalf of the appellants. 5. Upon hearing the arguments advanced on both sides and after perusing the records, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity or discrepancy in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the impugned order of the second appellant herein has been quashed. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision made by this Court in Narayanaswamy Naicker v. District Collector of Chengalpattu and others reported in 1998(3) LW 254 and held that in case of execution of sale deed through Court in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, demand made on the purchaser for payment of stamp duty on the basis of market value as on the date of execution and registration of the document would not be legal. We are in complete agreement with the above said proposition of law. 6. However, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the Registering Authority shall be entitled to assess the market value as on the date of agreement for sale with reference to the guideline value that was prevailing as on the date of agreement for sale and that the assessment of market value for collection of stamp duty under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act shall not be vitiated, if the Registering Authority is of the view that there was under valuation with reference to the guideline value prevailing as on the date of agreement. The respondent herein in his writ petition has prayed for the quashing of the impugned order which has been granted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the State was not justified in adopting the market value as on the date of registration of the instrument (sale deed). But it cannot be denied that the Registering Authority shall have the right to assess the market value as on the date of agreement in case of documents executed through Court pursuant to a decree for specific performance, if the Registering Authority feels that there is under valuation with reference to the market value of the property as on the date of the agreement for sale. In such an event, the order of the learned Single Judge will not come in the way of such an assessment being made. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice shall be met by dismissing the writ appeal with an observation as indicated above. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is observed that the Registering Authority shall have the right to assess the market value of the property as on the date of agreement and collect stamp duty accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.