BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18/11/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P(MD).No.6260 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 M/s.Allied Investment and Housing Pvt Ltd., Rep.by its Director, V.Neethisekar, City Tower, 5th Floor, 117, Thiyagarayar Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Department of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004. 2.The District Registrar (Administration), Madurai North, Madurai. 3.The Sub-Registrar, Office of Sub-Regisrar, Vadipatti, Madurai District. 4.The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Circle Office, 100-101, East Avani Moola Street, Madurai-625 001. ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order Niluvai Aa.No.21/2008 dated 02-07-2008 on the file of the third respondent to register the document without insisting upon the payment of additional stamp duty and release the document. !For Petitioner ...MrKarthikeya Venkatachalapathy ^For Respondents...Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.B.Jayaesh B Doli for R4 * * * :ORDER
This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the
order Niluvai Aa.No.21/2008 dated 02-07-2008 on the file of the third respondent
to register the document without insisting upon the payment of additional stamp
duty and release the document, by issuing a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this petition would run thus:
The fourth respondent – the authorised officer brought it for sale the
property of Sree Vishalakshi Mills (P) Ltd. in connection with the loan
transaction between the said Mills and the Indian Bank, Madurai – the fourth
respondent. Even before the sale procedures were completed, the borrower
challenged it in W.P.No.6960 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition,
this Court in its wisdom ordered for conducting auction in the presence of this
Court itself. Whereupon, the auction sale was conducted in the presence of the
Division Bench of this Court and ultimately, the Division Bench approved the act
of the authorised officer in selling the property. In connection with that
alone, the sale certificate dated 17.06.2008 issued by the authorised officer
emerged. When the sale certificate was sought to be registered, the Sub
Registrar namely the third respondent raised doubt about the valuation. He
expressed his desire that the valuation as found set out in the sale certificate
was not in commensurate with the market value. The sale certificate has yet not
been registered by the third respondent. Hence, the petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the grounds
set out in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would develop his
argument to the effect that already this Court in several decisions laid down
the law to the effect that if a sale certificate emerges out of a Court auction
sale, there need not be any query being raised by the registering authority as
there could be no suppression of actual valuation involved in such cases. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions:
(i) Sukumaran, R. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 (2) CTC 329.
(ii) A.J.Mapillai Mohadeen v. The Sub-Registrar, Registration Department
reported in 2008 (5) CTC 239.
(iii) Devi Narayanan Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. v. The Inspector
General of Registration reported in 2007 (5) CTC 60.
5. No doubt, a bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions would highlight
that in matters of the nature involved in this case, the registering authority
is having no jurisdiction to question the valuation.
6. It is pertinent to point out that as against the two recent decisions
of this Court cited supra, there emerged no appeal. This case involves revenue
to the State. When the State itself has virtually not agitated by preferring
writ appeals, I am of the view that there is no point on the part of the State
Official namely the third respondent to demand for more stamp duty on the ground
that the value as contemplated in the sale certificate is not in commensurate
with the market value.
7. No doubt, the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court cited
supra, are binding on the other Single Judges of this Court. If the Judge who is
seized of a present matter disagrees with the view expressed by the learned
Single Judge of the same Court, in similar matter, than it has to be referred to
a Larger Bench as per the High Court Rules.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that this case is
not one relating to Court auction sale, but concerning the sale conducted in the
presence of the Court by the authorities under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002. Whereas the learned Counsel for the petitioner would torpedo and
pulverize the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader by highlighting
the fact that the very sale was conducted before the Division Bench of this
Court and it was conducted by a statutory authority namely the Authorised
Officer concerned and this Court also approved the same which is much more than
a Court auction sale.
9. To the risk of repetition without being tautologous, I would like to
observe that when the State itself has not chosen to challenge those decisions
referred to supra, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity to get this
matter referred to a Larger Bench, even though I am having some reservations
relating to the ratio decedendi involved in those earlier decisions.
10. I am of the tentative view that nowhere in the Indian Stamp Act or in
the Rules relating to Valuation, it is stated that if at all, there is
suppression of actual valuation involved, then only the Sub Registrar would get
the power to invoke Section 47-A of the Registration Act while purchasing and
selling for sufficient consideration, but the authorities concerned who are
responsible for collecting the stamp duty, could go by the market value and
insist upon payment of stamp duty on par with the market value as found detailed
in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments)
Rules, 1968. Between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, certain amount
might be agreeable as sale consideration. The sale consideration is one thing,
but the State demanding stamp duty is entirely a different thing and
irrespective of any suppression of material facts, if the authorities feel
objectively that the value is not in commensurate with the market value, then I
could see no ratiocination in preventing them from collecting the stamp duty.
11. However, in view of the State itself accepted such verdicts cited
supra, I follow the same and accordingly, hold that the third respondent has got
no jurisdiction to arrive at a different valuation from the one specified in the
sale certificate and to invoke section 47-A of the Registration Act.
12. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to
the third respondent to register the said sale certificate. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
rsb
TO
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Department of Registration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Madurai North,
Madurai.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Office of Sub-Regisrar,
Vadipatti,
Madurai District.
4.The Authorized Officer,
Indian Bank, Circle Office,
100-101, East Avani Moola Street,
Madurai-625 001.