IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 07-01-2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Writ Appeal Nos.2607 to 2630, 2708 to 2713, 3179 to 3193, 2455 to 2469 of 2003 & 2345 to 2359 & 3373 to 3380 of 2004 & 1236 to 1240 of 2005 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES (J1 DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-600 009. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI-600 028. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, TRICHY DISTRICT, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI - 620 001. ..APPELLANTS Versus S.JAYALAKSHMI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2607/2003 S.RANGADURAI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2608/2003 R.SANGAR ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2609/2003 M.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2610/2003 ABDUL SARDAR ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2611/2003 R.MUNNUSAMY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2612/2003 J.PETER ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2613/2003 V.K.PALANISAMY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2614/2003 V.MANICKAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2615/2003 B.GOVINDARAJ ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2616/2003 S.LAKSHMI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2617/2003 A.K.C.NAMBIAR ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2618/2003 A.ROSALI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2619/2003 S.REVATHY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2620/2003 V.S.CHANDRASEKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2621/2003 K.KASINATHAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2622/2003 N.CHANDRASEKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2623/2003 T.PANCHANATHAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2624/2003 M.MARIADASS ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2625/2003 D.POONUMANI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2626/2003 J.DANIEL ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2627/2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ V.GEORGE CHANDRASEKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2628/2003 V.JAIN ALLAUDIN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2629/2003 R.THIRUMALAI RAJ ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2630/2003 B.RAJAGOPALAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2708/2003 R.VISWANATHAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2710/2003 D.SWIKKIN RAJ ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2711/2003 R.HARIRAMJI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2712/2003 ANTONY WILSON ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2713/2003 M.VEERA MUTHU ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3179/2003 K.PANDIYARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3180/2003 G.K.SRIDHARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3181/2003 SELVAMANI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3182/2003 SAMYKANNU ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3183/2003 M.PONNAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3184/2003 N.NATARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3185/2003 N.SAROJA ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3186/2003 M.VIJAYALAKSHMI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3187/2003 P.MOHAMMED SHERIF ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3188/2003 S.ISRAEL ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3189/2003 M.N.RAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3190/2003 B.CHANDRASEKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3191/2003 V.MARUTHAMUTHU ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3192/2003 S.PILLAPPAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 3193/2003 R.VIDYANATHAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2455/2003 P.AGAMBHARAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2456/2003 K.SRINIVASA GOPALAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2457/2003 V.GOPALA KRISHNAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2458/2003 A.G.NATARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2459/2003 S.ROSELIN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2460/2003 C.CHANDRA ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2461/2003 P.B.SIVAGURU ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2462/2003 P.RAJAGOPAL ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2463/2003 A.PALANI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2464/2003 K.NARASIMHAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2465/2003 V.LALITHA ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2466/2003 A.RAJU ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2467/2003 M.KAUSALYA ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2468/2003 SANTHANA MOORTHY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2469/2003 R.M.RAMAMOORTHY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2345/2004 R.NAGARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2346/2004 T.KULANDAISAMY ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2347/2004 V.S.SENGAMALAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2348/2004 M.VEDHAVALLI ..RESPONDENT IN WA 2349/2004 A. SAVARIMUTHU ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2350/2004 P. KANNAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2351/2004 K. JAYALAKSHMI ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2352/2004 V. SANKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2353/2004 K. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2354/2004 V. SANTHAKUMARI ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2355/2004 P. SHANMUGAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2356/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R. BALASUBRAMANIAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2357/2004 R. RDHAKRISHNAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2358/2004 R. USHA ..RESPONDENT IN WA.2359/2004 K. SANTHANAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3373/2004 M. MARUTHAMUTHU ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3374/2004 P. GOPALAKRISHNAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3375/2004 P. VENKATARAMAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3376/2004 K. AMANTHARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3377/2004 T.P.SAKTHIVEL ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3378/2004 T. THIRUMENI ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3379/2004 E. CHIDAMBARAM ..RESPONDENT IN WA.3380/2004 KARONLY ANNAMARY ..RESPONDENT IN WA.1236/2004 R. NATARAJAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.1237/2004 V. RAJASEKARAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.1238/2004 C. THANGAPPAN ..RESPONDENT IN WA.1239/2004 R. MANI ..RESPONDENT IN WA.1240/2004 Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of this Court dated 1.11.2002 and 14.10.2003 made in W.P.No.19862 of 2002 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 3rd respondent from demanding additional stamp duty for the document of sale. WP.No.19862/02 dated 30.03.1999 bearing registration No.1352/99 WP.No.21241/02 dated 02.06.1999 bearing registration No.2409/99 WP.No.19859/02 dated 07.06.1999 bearing registration No.3200/99 WP.No.19492/02 dated 11.03.1999 bearing registration No.8192/99 WP.No.19491/02 dated 11.04.1999 bearing registration No.1771/99 WP.No.19490/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1224/99 WP.No.19489/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.4312/99 WP.No.13998/02 dated 19.07.1999 bearing registration No.1787/99 WP.No.30328/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1528/99 WP.No.19494/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1444/99 WP.No.19493/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1457/99 WP.No.19487/02 dated 21.04.1999 bearing registration No.1775/99 WP.No.19486/02 dated 12.04.1999 bearing registration No.1621/99 WP.No.19502/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1192/99 WP.No.19501/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1422/99 WP.No.19500/02 dated 07.04.1999 bearing registration No.1554/99 WP.No.19499/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1194/99 WP.No.19497/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1208/99 WP.No.19498/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1441/99 WP.No.19496/02 dated 15.06.1999 bearing registration No.2586/99 WP.No.19495/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1192/99 WP.No.19504/02 dated 05.04.1999 bearing registration No.1442/99 WP.No.31590/02 dated 24.08.1999 bearing registration No.3714/99 WP.No.13664/02 dated 13.01.2000 bearing registration No.93/2000 WP.No.19383/02 dated 27.07.2001 bearing registration No.569/2001 WP.No.19485/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1230/99 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.19488/02 dated 30.03.1999 bearing registration No.1355/99 WP.No.19503/02 dated 30.03.1999 bearing registration No.1323/99 WP.No.19855/02 dated 26.03.1999 bearing registration No.1201/99 WP.No.30460/02 dated 26.04.1999 bearing registration No.1529/99 WP.No.21236/02 dated 5.5.99 bearing registration No.2028/99 WP.No.21232/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1196/99 WP.No.21234/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1193/99 WP.No.21191/02 dated 23.7.99 bearing registration No.3318/99 WP.No.21233/02 dated 12.3.01 bearing registration No.827/2001 WP.No.21231/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.1433/99 WP.No.21247/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1312/99 WP.No.19864/02 dated 8.6.01 bearing registration No.2196/2001 WP.No.19862/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1352/99 WP.No.19860/02 dated 17.8.99 bearing registration No.2194/99 WP.No.19858/02 dated 10.4.99 bearing registration No.1675/99 WP.No.19857/02 dated 19.01.2000 bearing registration No.120/2000 WP.No.19856/02 dated 28.5.99 bearing registration No.2379/99 WP.No.18852/02 dated 5.8.99 bearing registration No.2134/99 WP.No.18851/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.1445/99 WP.No.21852/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.2881/99 WP.No.14079/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1235/99 WP.No.14080/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1213/99 WP.No.14081/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1216/99 WP.No.14748/02 dated 6.4.99 bearing registration No.1584/99 WP.No.15180/02 dated 19.7.01 bearing registration No.3236/99 WP.No.21235/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.1428/99 WP.No.21242/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1324/99 WP.No.21244/02 dated 7.4.99 bearing registration No.1600/99 WP.No.21246/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1530/99 WP.No.21248/02 dated 22.4.99 bearing registration No.1845/99 WP.No.21680/02 dated 8.7.99 bearing registration No.1620/99 WP.No.21683/02 dated 11.9.99 bearing registration No.4123/99 WP.No.14078/02 dated 22.3.99 bearing registration No.1136/99 WP.No.21851/02 dated 28.5.99 bearing registration No.2380/99 WP.No.14190/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1317/99 WP.No.14191/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1226/99 WP.No.18850/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.1372/99 WP.No.19380/02 dated 17.6.99 bearing registration No.2610/99 WP.No.14084/02 dated 25.8.99 bearing registration No.3753/99 WP.No.14188/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1451/99 WP.No.14189/02 dated 30.3.99 bearing registration No.1366/99 WP.No.19382/02 dated 1.7.99 bearing registration No.2885/99 WP.No.19381/02 dated 30.3.00 bearing registration No.1276/00 WP.No.21245/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1202/99 WP.No.30453/02 dated 5.4.99 bearing registration No.1426/99 WP.No.13665/02 dated 26.4.99 bearing registration No.1904/99 WP.No.13999/02 dated 9.8.99 bearing registration No.3495/99 WP.No.14000/02 dated 27.5.99 bearing registration No.2354/99 WP.No.14083/02 dated 1.6.99 bearing registration No.2414/99 WP.No.28557/03 dated 15.6.99 bearing registration No.2597/99 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.No.28558/03 dated 26.3.03 bearing registration No.1159/03 WP.No.28559/03 dated 2.6.99 bearing registration No.2416/99 WP.No.28560/03 dated 18.11.99 bearing registration No.1949/99 WP.No.28561/03 dated 8.8.01 bearing registration No. 2892/01 WP.No.28562/03 dated 21.4.03 bearing registration No.1508/03 WP.No.28563/03 dated 10.3.2000 bearing registration No.919/2000 WP.No.28564/03 dated 28.2.2000 bearing registration No.772/2000 WP.No.21853/02 dated 17.7.99 bearing registration No.3348/99 WP.No.19861/02 dated 26.3.99 bearing registration No.1215/99 WP.No.21190/02 dated 10.5.99 bearing registration No.2096/99 WP.No.21187/02 dated 8.1.00 bearing registration No.30/2000 WP.No.21243/02 dated 31.3.99 bearing registration No.1440/99 executed by TNPHCL in favour of the petitioner. For Appellants : Mr.P.Subramanian, Addl.Govt.Pleader(W) For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnasamy, S.C. for Mr.K.Harishankar JUDGMENT M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J The appellants are the official respondents in writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by each of the respondent in these writ appeals, challenging the demand of additional stamp duty on the document of sale executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited ( in short " Corporation") a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, in favour of the writ petitioners and consequential refusal to release the respective sale deeds to the writ petitioners, already registered by the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurance, on account of non payment of additional stamp duty. 2. The Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking which has been formed to provide houses, police stations and office for police personnel. Each of the writ petitioner was allotted a flat by the Corporation. The respective writ petitioner had executed lease-cum-sale agreement in the year 1985 and also paid instalments in full. Thereafter, sale deed was given to each of the writ petitioner and the sale deeds were registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruverumbur, Trichy District. 3. The third appellant herein all of a sudden, during the beginning of the year 2000, started issuing notices demanding additional stamp duty on the instruments purporting to exercise powers under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The reason for demand of additional stamp duty was that market value of the property as on the date of the registration has not been taken into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration by the Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur while registering the sale deeds. 4. The writ petitioners formed an association viz., Trichy Navalpatti Police Colony Owners and Occupants Association and they submitted representation to the third appellant herein stating that the power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act can only be exercised by the Registering Officer when he has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of stamp duty and that mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and the execution of document will not be the determining factor that the document is under value. The third appellant in turn had sent a communication dated 20.12.2000 to the second appellant herein stating that all the sale deeds given by Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the allottees/writ petitioners may be registered on the basis of the real value of the property agreed between the said Corporation and the allottees. 5. The second appellant in spite of such communication from the third appellant, had rejected the request of the above said association on 24.1.2001. The association preferred further appeal to the first appellant who had also rejected the said appeal vide order dated 9.11.2001. The association, challenging the vires of the said order, filed W.P.No.11082 of 2001 and this Court has passed an order dated 3.4.2002 stating that since the issue pertaining to the right of an individual, each individual has to file a separate writ petition setting out the details and granted liberty to the association to file a writ petition by each individual. Hence the writ petitions came to be filed. 6. In the writ petitions, it is contended that the transaction of sale between the Corporation and the respective writ petitioner was a sale between the Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and the allottee and there cannot be any under valuation or mala fide attached to such transactions. It is further contended that unless there is fraudulent evasion in payment of stamp duty, aid of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be pressed into service to review the payment of stamp duty already paid on documents. 7. The second appellant who was arrayed as second respondent in the writ petitions filed his counter submitting that the Corporation has built various types of houses and allotted to the writ petitioners according to the category by way of executing sale deeds and the said sale deeds were presented before the registering officer Thiruverumbur and the said officer, has inadvertently admitted the documents for registration on the value set forth therein, instead of taking into account, the guideline value and P.W.D. rates. By virtue of power conferred under Section 9(1)(a) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Indian Stamp Act, the Government empowered to issue notification remitting or reducing the stamp duty for various kinds of instruments from time to time. 8. It is further contended by the second respondent that in the absence of any notification under the above said provision, the documents in question are chargeable to stamp duty on the market value, on the date of execution of such sale deeds as per explanation to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. 9. The third respondent in the writ petition/ third appellant has filed his counter stating that the registering officer, Thiruverumbur had inadvertently admitted the deeds of sale produced for registration on the value set forth in the said documents instead of taking into consideration, guideline value and P.W.D. rates. The said mistake was pointed out by the Local Audit in its reports 3/99 and 6/99 and hence action was taken under Section 47-A (1) and 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. 10. The learned Judge after taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petitions and the counter affidavits, found that in the year 1985, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation which is Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking has executed lease- cum-sale Agreement in favour of the writ petitioners and they also paid their respective sale consideration in instalments and thereafter, got executed sale deeds by the Corporation before the concerned Sub-Registrar as early as in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively. 11. The learned Judge on consideration of the materials available on record, held that there is no material on record either to suspect or to hold that the conveyance by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the writ petitioners is either attracted by alleged under valuation or fraudulent evasion of stamp duty. On the other hand, since the sale deeds were executed by the Corporation which is the Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking in favour of the writ petitioners, it can be presumed that it is a bona fide transaction. The learned Judge further held that unless there is any substantial and material evidence and reasons to believe that the market value of the property conveyed has not been truly set forth in the instrument, with an object to commit a fraudulent evasion of stamp duty to cause loss of revenue, it cannot be presumed that the power conferred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is a routine one in respect of each and every transaction. 12. The learned Judge taken into consideration the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and held that the market value as set forth in the sale deeds executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the respective writ petitioner are truly set forth and hence action under Section https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked and thereby allowed all the writ petitions. The official respondents in the writ petitions, aggrieved by the said orders, had preferred these writ appeals. 13. Mr.P.Subramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that in the absence of exemption notification under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, the deeds of conveyance executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the writ petitioners are liable for stamp duty as on the date of registration of instruments. The learned additional Government Pleader would further contend that the powers conferred under Section 47-A(1) and 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act can be invoked when there is a reason to believe that there is loss of revenue due to under valuation. 14. The learned Additional Government Pleader in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2008(1) CTC 60 (SC) - State of Rajasthan and others vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers. The said case arose out of the suit for specific performance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian has taken into consideration Section 17 and Section 47-A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) Stamp Duty Act found that the Registering Authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct value at the time and should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering the scope of Section 47-A read with Sections 3, 17 and 27 of the above said Act found that the Registering Authority has to ascertain whether the Correct value is given in the instrument regarding the market value of the property at the time of sale. Ultimately, it has been held in the said decision that the Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent therein shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. 15. The learned Additional Government Pleader heavily stressed upon the ratio laid down in the said decision and submitted the valuation as on the date of presentation of the instrument is the primary factor for levying the stamp duty and since the Registering Officer has inadvertently admitted the instruments for registration on the value set forth in the document instead of taking into account, guideline value and P.W.D. rates, representations submitted by the writ petitioners were rightly rejected, which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) that the scope of Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act has not been properly considered at the time of disposal of the writ petitions and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions. 16. Per contra, Mr.R.Krishnasamy, learned senior counsel for Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in each of the writ appeals would contend that the lease-cum-sale Agreement came to be executed in the year 1985 by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation and after the entire instalments were paid, the documents were registered by the respective Sub Registrar in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001. Since the transactions were between the Government Undertaking and the allottees who are the Police Personnel, there is no reason to believe or doubt bona fide of the valuation set forth in the respective instruments. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the ratio laid down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court and correctly arrived at a finding and thereby allowed the writ petitions and no interference is warranted in exercise of powers conferred under Clause 15 of Letters of Patent. 17. The learned senior counsel in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions:- i. AIR 1982 (Mad.) 138 - Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund vs. M/s. Mahavir Plantations Pte. Ltd. ii. (1994)4 SCC 595 - Jawajeenagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others. iii. 1997(II) CTC 617 (DB) - S.P.Padmavathi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu. iv. 1999 (2) L.W. 231 - M.Ponnusamy and others vs. The District Collector, Erode and others. v. 2001(2) CTC 449 (DB) - The District Collector, Erode District, Erode vs. M.Ponnusamy. vi. 2002(2) CTC 329 - R.Sukumaran and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others. vii. 2006(4) L.W. 695 - The Sub Registrar, Adayar, Chennai vs. Canara Bank, Saidapet Branch and another. viii. 2008-1-L.W. 743 (DB)- State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. Janab Habeeb Jan.K. 18. In AIR 1982 (Mad.) 138 - Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund vs. M/s. Mahavir Plantations Pte. Ltd., it has been held that: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were avowedly intended merely to assist the Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make under Sec. 47A." It has been further held in the said decision that the determination of market value in land acquisition proceedings cannot be adopted either as the basis or even as one of the piece of evidence, for the purpose of determining the market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned Judge in the said decision has taken into consideration the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1974 (Mad.) 117 - State of Tamil Nadu vs. Chandrasekharan, which considered rationale behind Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. In the above said decision, the observations made are as follows:- "...we are inclined to think that the object of the Amending Act being to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty, it is not meant to be applied in a matter of fact fashion and in a haphazard way. Market value itself as we already mentioned, is a changing factor and will depend on various circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. No exactitude is, in the nature of things possible. In working 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 the consideration stated as the market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exists which suggest fraudulent evasion." 19. In (1994)4 SCC 595 - Jawajeenagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others, it has been held that in respect of market value to be computed under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, Basic Valuation Register maintained by the Registering Authority for collection of stamp duty, has not statutory foundation to determine the market value under and the evidence of price fetched in comparable sale transaction, is generally accepted as the best method to determine the market value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision, had considered the scope of Section 47-A (A.P. Amendment) of the Stamp Act and held that the said provision does not confer power to determine market value of an entire area, region or block and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty and the said power is exercisable with reference to the particular land covered by the instrument for registration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20. In 1997(II) CTC 617 (DB) - S.P.Padmavathi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, the scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act came up for consideration and this Court has considered all the earlier decisions on this aspect and held as follows:- "It is not in each and every case, the Registering Officer is expected to deal with the instrument under Sec.47-A of the Act, but it is only when the instrument has been undervalued or has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the case of instrument executed pursuant to the decree, there is no scope for doubting the bona fides of the parties. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility of unscrupulous persons, with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty, creating agreements to sell for a very low sum and them approaching the Court for specific performance by mutual consent or without much contest, and thereafter presenting the documents for registration pursuant to the decree passed for specific performance. In such cases, under valuation would be apparent and it would also be open to the Registering Officer, after being satisfied as to lack of bona fides and fraudulent attempt on the part of the parties to undervalue the subject of transfer, to invoke the power under Section 47A of the Act. But such a process or proceedings cannot, in the normal course, be pursued in all cases. It is only if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the consideration about has not been truly set forth in the document." 21. In 1999 (2) L.W. 231 - M.Ponnusamy and others vs. The District Collector, Erode and others, the act of reference made to the Collector under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act after lapse of two years and retention of the sale deeds after completion of registration came up for consideration and it has been held as follows:- "It is obvious that before registering the document, the Registering Officer has to come to a prima facie conclusion that in the instrument, the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and thereafter, complete registration and refer the same for determination of the market value. The language of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear. The condition precedent for making a reference is, there