1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.833 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 J.Mubarak Nisha .. Appellant Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu cum Principal Revenue Control Authority, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tanjore, District Collector Office, Tanjore. 3.The Sub Registrar – I, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District. .. Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 47(A) (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with Rule 9(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Under-valuation of Instrument Rules, 1968, against the order dated 23.03.2009 passed in Proceedings No.61480/N5/06 by the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Tamil Nadu Principal Revenue Control Authority. For Appellant .. Mr.T.V.Sivakumar For Respondents .. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl. Government Pleader JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 23.03.2009 passed in Proceedings No.61480/N5/06 by the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Tamil Nadu Principal Revenue Control Authority, who has been arrayed as first respondent herein. 2. The appellant has purchased the properties comprised in T.S.Nos.1522 and 1914, which are situate in Ward No.7, North Kudiyana Street, Kumbakonam on the basis of the then existing market value and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the document, which stands in the name of the appellant has been registered on 07.10.2005 and subsequently a notice dated 28.10.2005 has been issued by the second respondent, wherein the appellant has been directed to pay deficit Registration Fee and thereafter an inspection has been conducted on 12.09.2006 and ultimately the first respondent has fixed the value of the properties in dispute at Rs.325/- per square feet on the basis of guideline value and the appellant has been directed to pay deficit Registration Fee as well as interest amount. Against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has attacked the impugned order on the following grounds: (a) The sale deed in question has been registered on 07.10.2005, wherein value of the properties has been fixed on the basis of the then existing market value. (b) The authorities concerned have erroneously fixed value of the properties in dispute on the basis of guideline value and the same cannot be accepted. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the properties in dispute are situate in the heart of Kumbakonam Town and the appellant has erroneously fixed its market value as Rs.130/- per square feet and the respondents after considering the location of the disputed properties have rightly fixed Rs.325/- per square feet on the basis of existing guideline value and therefore the impugned order passed by the first respondent does not require any interference. 5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has purchased the properties, which are comprised in T.S.Nos.1522 and 1914, which situate in Ward No.7, North Kudiyana Street, Kumbakonam Town. In the sale deed in question, the market value of one square feet has been fixed at Rs.130/-. The first respondent has fixed the market value of the properties in dispute at Rs.325/- per square feet on the basis of the existing guideline value. The first respondent has not referred to any contemporaneous document so as to fix the actual value of the properties in question. Under the said circumstances, the authorities concerned are found to fix the value of the properties in question only on the basis of existing market value. Therefore the approach made by the first respondent so as to fix the value of the properties in dispute on the basis of guideline value cannot be accepted and further apart from the alleged deficit Registration Fee, the appellant has been directed to pay interest to the tune of Rs.1,01,180/- for the period of three years. Therefore viewing from any angle, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the authorities concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the impugned order dated 23.03.2009 passed in Proceedings No.61480/N5/06 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 alleged deficit Registration Fee on the basis of the then market value and also on the basis of contemporaneous documents. The appellant is at liberty to produce contemporaneous documents for the purpose of fixing correct market value. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu cum Principal Revenue Control Authority, Office of the Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tanjore, District Collector Office, Tanjore. 3.The Sub Registrar – I, Kumbakonam, Tanjore District. +1cc to Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, Advocate, Sr.No.29816 C.M.A(MD)No.833 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 29.08.2011 smn SMA/16.9.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/