1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.905 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Rooba Moses .. Appellant/Appellant Vs. 1.Principal Revenue Controller/ Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhom High Road, Chennai – 28. 2.Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub-Registrar (Registration), Rajakkamangalam Sub-Registry, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents/1st Respondent & Petitioner Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 47(A) (5) of the Stamp Act, against the order dated 26.02.2011 passed in Pa.Mu.No.28734/N5/2008 by the Principal Revenue Controller/Inspector General of Registration. For Appellant .. M/s.J.Balameenakshi For Respondents .. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl. Government Pleader JUDGMENT The order dated 26.02.2011 passed in Pa.Mu.No.28734/N5/2008 by the Principal Revenue Controller/Inspector General of Registration, who has been arrayed as first respondent in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.905 of 2011 is being challenged. 2. The appellant has purchased the property, which is comprised in Survey No.G4/ 15-10 admeasuring 12 cents on the basis of Rs.1,000/- per cent and paid Registration Fee and subsequently the appellant has been directed to pay deficit Registration Fee mainly on the basis that the land in question should be valued on the basis of the value mentioned in the Guideline Register. The first respondent (Inspector General of Registration) after analysing the available evidence on record has passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2011, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay deficit amount of Registration Fee. Against the impugned order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant has paid Registration Fee on the basis of market value of the property in question, but the respondents have directed the appellant to pay Registration Fee on the basis of the value fixed in Guideline Register and the method adopted by them is totally erroneous and therefore the order in question is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the property in question is nothing, but a house site and the same should be valued on the basis of value of square feet and that too on the basis of guideline value and under the said circumstances the impugned order has been passed on 26.02.2011 and the same need not be interfered with. 5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has purchased the property in question on the basis of Rs.1,000/- per cent. The respondents have contended that the land in question is nothing, but a house site and therefore the Registration Fee should be paid only on the basis of square feet and that too on the basis of guideline value. 6. It is an everlasting principle of law that if there is any deficiency in paying Registration Fee, the Registering Authority can direct the purchaser(s) to pay deficit fee on the basis of value and also on the basis of the market value fixed in contemporaneous documents. In the instant case, the entire impugned order has been proceeded with only on the basis of the value mentioned in the Guideline Register and also on the basis of the value of square feet. Therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent is totally erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the first respondent. 7. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the impugned order dated 26.02.2011 passed in Pa.Mu.No.28734/N5/2008 by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent is directed to fix the market value of the property in question on the basis of the value given in contemporaneous documents. The appellant is directed to produce contemporaneous documents. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ` Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Principal Revenue Controller/ Inspector General of Registration, 120, Santhom High Road, Chennai – 28. 2.Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sub-Registrar (Registration), Rajakkamangalam Sub-Registry, Kanyakumari District. Copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.J.Bala Meenakshi, Advocate (SR.No.28565) C.M.A(MD)No.905 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 22.08.2011 smn NSV/8.9.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/