ORDER
P. Jyothimani, J.
1. Two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order of the 4th respondent viz. Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur dated 22.10.2007 by which the fourth respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 9,504/- and Registration charge of Rs. 1,185/- in respect of document which is numbered as P. No. 28/07, the subject matter of challenge in writ petition in W.P. No. 37689 of 2007 and an amount of Rs. 82,544/- towards the deficit stamp duty and an amount of Rs. 10,315/- towards Registration charges regarding document No. 22428/06, the subject matter of challenge in writ petition in W.P. No. 37690 of 2007. Admittedly, both the documents are not released by the fourth respondent, Sub Registrar, Sriperumbudur.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the valuation in respect of the properties which are in the same survey number having made as Rs. 5,000/- per cent which according to the petitioner is not a proper guide line value fixed. The further case of the petitioner is that the same petitioner has registered two other documents in the very adjacent survey numbers on the same day of presentation of the documents viz., 23.11.2006, registered as Document No. 22427 of 2006 and 22429 of 2006 wherein the guideline value of the property was fixed by the very fourth respondent at Rs. 600/- per cent. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned orders are ex facie arbitrary.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate would submit that it is on the basis of the revised guideline value, as approved by the authority only the impugned order came to be passed to which the fourth respondent has every jurisdiction. Learned Government Advocate has also fairly produced a letter of the fourth respondent addressed to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai by which he has referred a document viz. No. 25032 of 2007 under Section 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for the purpose of fixation of the guideline value. A reference to the letter shows that it also relates to the property adjacent to the present property in dispute and there also the market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per cent. While so, in the present case, the fourth respondent has chosen to pass an order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty for the purpose of registration. But, it is clear that the petitioner has filed the documents which are subject matter of dispute of both the writ petitions for registration before 4th respondent i.e. on 23.11.2007 and all other requirements under law have been complied with. On the other hand, the other two documents which have been referred to above were also presented by the same petitioner on the same day on 23.11.2007. It also relates to the property in the same place, but adjacent survey number. In respect of those properties, the guideline value fixed by the fourth respondent is Rs. 600/- per cent and the documents were released. However, in respect of the present properties in dispute in these two writ petitions, the fixation of guideline value at Rs. 5,000/- per cent has no basis. The impugned orders also does not explain under what basis the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per cent has been fixed. In the absence of proper guideline has been fixed in this case, I am of the considered view that it is the duty of the 4th respondent to refer the same to the revenue authorities for the purpose of fixation of guideline value as per Section 47(A)(1) of Indian Stamp Act.
4. Section 47(A)(1) enables the registering authority to refer the instrument to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property for the assessment of duty to be payable thereon, in case where the Registering authority is of the view that the market value of the property relating to the instrument or conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has not been truly set forth by the person who present the document. After the decision taken by the Collector, a person aggrieved by such order, has a right of preferring an appeal to the authority who is the Chief Controlling Revenue authority (According to the learned Government Advocate I.G. of Registration) and that appeal is provided under Section 47(A)(5) which reads as follows:
47(A)(5): Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), may appeal to such authority as may be prescribed in this behalf. All such appeals shall be preferred within such time, and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.
5. Even as against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the petitioner has got right to file an appeal before this Court as contemplated under Section 47(A)(10) which reads as follows:
47(A)(10): Any person aggrieved by an order of the authority prescribed under Sub-section (5) or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Sub-section (6) may, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, appeal to the High Court.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this Act, market value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Collector or the Chief Controlling Authority or the High Court, as the case may be, such property would have fetched or would fetch, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement.
6. It is further seen that there is a revision power available under Section 56 of the Act in respect of the orders passed by various authorities stated above.
7. Under such circumstances, on the admitted fact that the fourth respondent himself has referred another document to the authority as stated above for ascertaining the market value under Section 47(A)(1) of the Act, it is not known as to how in the present case, the fourth respondent has not followed the same procedure. In view of the above said factual position, there is absolutely nothing on record to show as to how a differential treatment has been given to the petitioner in respect of assessment of the market value of the property. The impugned orders are set aside with a direction to the fourth respondent to refer the documents in dispute in these writ petitions to the authority concerned for ascertaining the market value as per Section 47(A)(1) of the Stamp Act and on such reference, the authority concerned shall give notice to the petitioner and consider all the claims of the petitioners as it is claimed in these writ petitions and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that the fourth respondent shall make a reference as set out above, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such reference, the authority, contemplated under Section 47(A)(1) of the Stamp Act, shall conduct an enquiry and pass orders expeditiously, in any event within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
8. With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.