1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.10936 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 G.Shenbagaraman ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome,Chennai. 2.The Sub Registrar, Alangulam,Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent herein in his proceedings in mjpK vz;/,y;iy dated 04.08.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to complete the process of registration of the sale deed dated 12.03.2010 and release the same to the petitioner herein within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Vallinayagam For Respondents ... Mr.M.Govindan, Special Govt. Pleader ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent herein in his proceedings in mjpK vz;/,y;iy dated 04.08.2011 and quash the same and further direct the respondents herein to complete the process of registration of the sale deed dated 12.03.2010 and release the same to the petitioner herein within the time stipulated by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. One Vasanthakumar was a Power of Attorney from its owner namely T.K.Sathiyaseelan to sell the property to an extent of 74 cents in S.No.280/2 at Puzhal Village, Ambathur Taluk, Thiruvallur District which was originally owned by one T.Indhar Singh. In addition to that, the said Vasanthakumar has purchased a house site in his name to an extent of 202.34 sq. mts in S.No.58/1B at Subbiahpuram Village, Alangulam Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 10.03.2010 from the vendor namely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 M.Pon Pandian and that property lies within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. 5. The said Vasanthakumar executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 12.03.2010 in respect of the land in S.No.58/1B at Subbiahpuram Village and also in respect of the land to an extent of 74 cents in S.No.280/2 at Puzhal Village, Ambathur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, which is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar, Red Hills. The said sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent on 12.03.2010. According to the petitioner, the entire stamp duty has been paid. The second respondent without registering the document, has passed the impugned order after more than one month returning the document stating that he is awaiting the guideline value from the office of the Sub Registrar, Red Hills and only after receiving the information regarding the guideline value from the office of the Sub Registrar, the document can be registered. 6. However, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the document is retained by the second respondent. The said order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to retain the document. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even if the second respondent entertains a doubt about the valuation, he has to refer the document under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), after registering the same. 7.As per Section 47-A(1) of the Act, it is clear that the registering authority has to register the document before referring to the Collector for determination of market value, if he has reason to believe that the market value of property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. 8.After reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, comes into operation, based on which the Collector (Stamps) should act for the purpose of deciding and there is an appeal to the appellate authority apart from another appeal to the High Court as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. 9.Therefore, the reason assigned in the impugned order as if the second respondent is awaiting the Valuation from the office of the Sub Registrar, Red Hills, is not in accordance with Section 47-A(1) of the Act. If at all the second respondent has doubt about the Valuation given by the petitioner, the appropriate method should be after registration of the document and thereafter, refer it under Section 47-A (1) of the Act to the Collector (Stamps) for deciding about the Valuation. Of course, as per various provisions of Section 47-A of the Act, there has been sufficient safeguards given namely, the charge over the property till the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act are terminated and any alienation in the meantime, cannot obstruct the revenue to collect the appropriate stamp duty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10.In such view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in mjpK vz;/,y;iy dated 04.08.2011, is set aside with the following directions to the second respondent: (i)In case, the document is returned, on representation by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or otherwise, if it is retained with the Registrar and he entertains doubt the value, he shall after registration, refer to the authority for Valuation under Section 47-A of the Act and if the authority refers for the Valuation under Section 47-A of the Act, the law is well settled that he cannot retain the document with him. On reference, he has to return the document to the petitioner with an endorsement on the document that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act is pending. The proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act shall be proceeded till final decision is arrived at regarding valuation including the right of appeal to the appellate authority and the appeal to the High Court. (ii)The endorsement shall be retained on the document and after termination of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act and on payment of entire stamp duty, the endorsement shall be removed by the Sub Registrar on production of the same. (iii) Till termination of the entire proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, there shall be a charge over the property in favour of the Government as per Section 47-A(4) of the Act. (iv) Pendency of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act shall be revealed in the Encumbrance Certificate for the benefit of the purchasers. (v) The second respondent shall register the said document and release the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome,Chennai. 2.The Sub Registrar, Alangulam,Tirunelveli District. W.P.(MD)No.10936 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 28.09.2011 rsb/sms PA/10.10.2011/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/