The Government of Tamil Nadu vs S. Jayalakshmi and Others

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The appellants are the official respondents in writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by each of the respondent

in these writ appeals, challenging the demand of additional stamp duty on the document of sale executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing

Corporation Limited (in short "" Corporation"") a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, in favour of the writ petitioners and consequential refusal

to release the respective sale deeds to the writ petitioners, already registered by the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurance, on account of non

payment of additional stamp duty.

The Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking which has been formed to provide houses, police

stations and office for police personnel. Each of the writ petitioner was allotted a flat by the Corporation. The respective writ petitioner had

executed lease-cum-sale agreement in the year 1985 and also paid instalments in full. Thereafter, sale deed was given to each of the writ petitioner

and the sale deeds were registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar at Thiruverumbur, Trichy District.

The third appellant herein all of a sudden, during the beginning of the year 2000, started issuing notices demanding additional stamp duty on the

instruments purporting to exercise powers u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The reason for demand of additional stamp duty was that market

value of the property as on the date of the registration has not been taken into consideration by the Sub Registrar, Thiruverumbur while registering

the sale deeds.

The writ petitioners formed an association viz., Trichy Navalpatti Police Colony Owners and Occupants Association and they submitted

representation to the third appellant herein stating that the power u/s 47-A of the Stamp Act can only be exercised by the Registering Officer when

he has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, has not been truly set forth with a view to

fraudulently evade payment of stamp duty and that mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and the execution of document will not be

the determining factor that the document is under value. The third appellant in turn had sent a communication dated 20.12.2000 to the second

appellant herein stating that all the sale deeds given by Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the allottees/writ petitioners may be

registered on the basis of the real value of the property agreed between the said Corporation and the allottees.

The second appellant in spite of such communication from the third appellant, had rejected the request of the above said association on

24.1.2001. The association preferred further appeal to the first appellant who was also rejected the said appeal vide order dated 9.11.2001. The

association, challenging the vires of the said order, filed W.P. No. 11082 of 2001 and this Court has passed an order dated 3.4.2002 stating that

since the issue pertaining to the right of an individual, each individual has to file a separate writ petition setting out the details and granted liberty to

the association to file a writ petition by each individual. Hence the writ petitions came to be filed.

In the writ petitions, it is contended that the transaction of sale between the Corporation and the respective writ petitioner was a sale between

the Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and the allottee and there cannot be any under valuation or mala fide attached to such transactions. It

is further contended that unless there is fraudulent evasion in payment of stamp duty, aid of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be

pressed into service to review the payment of stamp duty already paid on documents.

The second appellant who was arrayed as second respondent in the writ petitions filed his counter submitting that the Corporation has built

various types of houses and allotted to the writ petitioners according to the category by way of executing sale deeds and the said sale deeds were

presented before the registering officer Thiruverumbur and the said officer, has inadvertently admitted the documents for registration on the value

set forth therein, instead of taking into account, the guideline value and P.W.D. rates. By virtue of power conferred u/s 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp

Act, the Government empowered to issue notification remitting or reducing the stamp duty for various kinds of instruments from time to time.

It is further contended by the second respondent that in the absence of any notification under the above said provision, the documents in

question are chargeable to stamp duty on the market value, on the date of execution of such sale deeds as per explanation to Section 47-A of the

Indian Stamp Act.

The third respondent in the writ petition/third appellant has filed his counter stating that the registering officer, Thiruverumbur had inadvertently

admitted the deeds of sale produced for registration on the value set forth in the said documents instead of taking into consideration, guideline value

and P.W.D. rates. The said mistake was pointed out by the Local Audit in its reports 3/99 and 6/99 and hence action was taken u/s 47-A(1) and

47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act.

The learned Judge after taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petitions and the counter affidavits, found that in the year

1985, Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation which is Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking has executed lease-cum-sale Agreement in

favour of the writ petitioners and they also paid their respective sale consideration in instalments and thereafter, got executed sale deeds by the

Corporation before the concerned Sub-Registrar as early as in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively.

The learned Judge on consideration of the materials available on record, held that there is no material on record either to suspect or to hold

that the conveyance by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the writ petitioners is either attracted by alleged under valuation or

fraudulent evasion of stamp duty. On the other hand, since the sale deeds were executed by the Corporation which is the Government of Tamil

Nadu Undertaking in favour of the writ petitioners, it can be presumed that it is a bona fide transaction. The learned Judge further held that unless

there is any substantial and material evidence and reasons to believe that the market value of the property conveyed has not been truly set forth in

the instrument, with an object to commit a fraudulent evasion of stamp duty to cause loss of revenue, it cannot be presumed that the power

conferred u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is a routine one in respect of each and every transaction.

The learned Judge taken into consideration the pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and held that the market value as set

forth in the sale deeds executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the respective writ petitioner are truly set forth and

hence action u/s 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked and thereby allowed all the writ petitions. The official respondents in the writ

petitions, aggrieved by the said orders, had preferred these writ appeals.

Mr. P. Subramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that in the absence of exemption notification u/s 9(1)(a) of the

Indian Stamp Act, the deeds of conveyance executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the writ petitioners are liable for

stamp duty as on the date of registration of instruments. The learned additional Government Pleader would further contend that the powers

conferred u/s 47-A(1) and 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act can be invoked when there is a reason to believe that there is loss of revenue due to

under valuation.

The learned Additional Government Pleader in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the judgment reported in State of Rajasthan

and Others Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, The said case arose out of the suit for specific performance. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of Indian has

taken into consideration Section 17 and Section 47-A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) Stamp Duty Act found that the Registering Authority is

under an obligation to ascertain the correct value at the time and should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument. The Hon''ble Supreme

Court of India after considering the scope of Section 47-A read with Sections 3, 17 and 27 of the above said Act found that the Registering

Authority has to ascertain whether the Correct value is given in the instrument regarding the market value of the property at the time of sale.

Ultimately, it has been held in the said decision that the Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of

the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent therein shall pay the stamp duty

charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act.

The learned Additional Government Pleader heavily stressed upon the ratio laid down in the said decision and submitted the valuation as on the

date of presentation of the instrument is the primary factor for levying the stamp duty and since the Registering Officer has inadvertently admitted

the instruments for registration on the value set forth in the document instead of taking into account, guideline value and P.W.D. rates,

representations submitted by the writ petitioners were rightly rejected, which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been further

submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) that the scope of Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act has not been properly

considered at the time of disposal of the writ petitions and therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions.

Per contra, Mr. R. Krishnasamy, learned senior Counsel for Mr. K. Harishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in each of the

writ appeals would contend that the lease-cum-sale Agreement came to be executed in the year 1985 by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing

Corporation and after the entire instalments were paid, the documents were registered by the respective Sub Registrar in the year 1999, 2000 and

2001. Since the transactions were between the Government Undertaking and the allottees who are the Police Personnel, there is no reason to

believe or doubt bona fide of the valuation set forth in the respective instruments. It is further submitted by the learned senior Counsel appearing for

the respondent that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the ratio laid down in various judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India

and this Court and correctly arrived at a finding and thereby allowed the writ petitions and no interference is warranted in exercise of powers

conferred under Clause 15 of Letters of Patent.

The learned senior Counsel in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions:

i. AIR 1982 (Mad.) 138 - Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund v. Mahavir Plantations Pte. Ltd.

ii. Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others,

iii. S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others,

iv. 1999 (2) L.W. 231 - M. Ponnusamy and Ors. v. The District Collector, Erode and Ors.

v. 2001(2) CTC 449 (DB) - The District Collector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy.

vi. 2002(2) CTC 329 R. Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

vii. 2006(4) L.W. 695 - The Sub Registrar, Adayar, Chennai v. Canara Bank, Saidapet Branch and Anr.

viii. 2008 1 L.W. 743 (DB)- State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Janab Habeeb Jan. K.

In AIR 1982 (Mad.) 138 - Collector of Nilgiris at Ootacamund v. Mahavir Plantations Pte. Ltd., it has been held that:

The valuation guidelines prepared by the Revenue Officials at the instance of the Board of Revenue were avowedly intended merely to assist the

Sub-Registrars to find out, prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instruments had been set forth correctly. The guidelines were not

intended as a substitute for market value or to foreclose the inquiry by the Collector which he is under a duty to make u/s 47A.

It has been further held in the said decision that the determination of market value in land acquisition proceedings cannot be adopted either as the

basis or even as one of the piece of evidence, for the purpose of determining the market value u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned

Judge in the said decision has taken into consideration the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1974 (Mad.) 117 - State of

Tamil Nadu v. Chandrasekharan, which considered rationale behind Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. In the above said decision, the observations

made are as follows:

...we are inclined to think that the object of the Amending Act being to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty, it is not meant to be applied in a

matter of fact fashion and in a haphazard way. Market value itself as we already mentioned, is a changing factor and will depend on various

circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. No exactitude is, in the nature of things possible. In working the Act, great caution should

be taken in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression. Having regard to the object of the Act, we are inclined to think that normally the

consideration stated as the market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exists

which suggest fraudulent evasion.

In Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and Others, , it has been held that in respect of market value to be

computed u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, Basic Valuation Register maintained by the Registering Authority for collection of stamp duty, has

not statutory foundation to determine the market value under and the evidence of price fetched in comparable sale transaction, is generally

accepted as the best method to determine the market value. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision, had considered the scope

of Section 47-A (A.P. Amendment) of the Stamp Act and held that the said provision does not confer power to determine market value of an

entire area, region or block and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty and the said power is exercisable with reference to the

particular land covered by the instrument for registration.

In S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , the scope of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act came up for consideration and

this Court has considered all the earlier decisions on this aspect and held as follows:

It is not in each and every case, the Registering Officer is expected to deal with the instrument u/s 47-A of the Act, but it is only when the

instrument has been undervalued or has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the case of instrument executed pursuant to the decree, there is

no scope for doubting the bona fides of the parties. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility of unscrupulous persons, with a view to evade

payment of proper stamp duty, creating agreements to sell for a very low sum and them approaching the Court for specific performance by mutual

consent or without much contest, and thereafter presenting the documents for registration pursuant to the decree passed for specific performance.

In such cases, under valuation would be apparent and it would also be open to the Registering Officer, after being satisfied as to lack of bona fides

and fraudulent attempt on the part of the parties to undervalue the subject of transfer, to invoke the power u/s 47A of the Act. But such a process

or proceedings cannot, in the normal course, be pursued in all cases. It is only if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the consideration

about has not been truly set forth in the document.

In 1999 (2) L.W. 231 - M. Ponnusamy and Ors. v. The District Collector, Erode and Ors., the act of reference made to the Collector u/s 47-

A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act after lapse of two years and retention of the sale deeds after completion of registration came up for consideration

and it has been held as follows:

It is obvious that before registering the document, the Registering Officer has to come to a prima facie conclusion that in the instrument, the market

value of the property has not been truly set forth and thereafter, complete registration and refer the same for determination of the market value. The

language of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear. The condition precedent for making a reference is, there must be reason for the

Registering Authority to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document presented for registration. Hence,

it follows that the reasons must be recorded, however short it may be. It is the duty of the Registering Authority to record reasons for his belief that

true market value has not been set out in the document, complete registration and thereafter refer the matter to the Collector for determination of

the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.

It is essential to point out that before registration, the Registering Authority has to record that he has reasons to believe that the value of the

property has not been duly set forth in the instrument. Only after recording such reasons, the Registering Authority has to complete registration of

the instrument in question and thereafter alone, he could refer the same to the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp

Act. Such is not the case of the respondents herein. To this extent, the function of the Registering Authority is quasi judicial in nature and he has to

come to a conclusion that the market value of the property dealt under the document had not been truly set forth and after completion of

registration, he could make a reference. At least some reasons should be recorded and immediately after completion of registration or sooner

thereafter, a reference has to be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.

What is required under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is that the Registering Authority had to come to a conclusion

before registration that the market value of the property, dealt under the instrument of conveyance or release, has been under-valued and he should

have entertained reasonable belief in this respect and also, he should have recorded such a reason. Immediately after recording such reason, he has

to complete the registration and thereafter refer the instruments to the Collector in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp

Act. Only in respect of the instruments, which have not been referred to for adjudication to the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of

the said Act, the Collector could exercise or invoke suo motu powers conferred on him under Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A and had a

reference been made u/s 47-A(1) of the said Act it would have been answered either way by the Collector, then it is obvious that the Collector

cannot exercise suo motu powers in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act.

In 2001(2) CTC 449 (DB) - The District Collector, Erode District, Erode v. M. Ponnusamy, the said question once again came up for

consideration and a Division Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the decision reported in S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

and Others, and held that the documents presented for registration has to be registered if it sets forth market value and registering officer has

power to find out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in instrument presented for registration. In the event of the Registering

Officer not accepting the valuation, he shall register the document and thereafter, he can refer the same to the Collector for adjudication. In the

absence of document or material produced to show that the documents in question have been undervalued, the Registering Officer cannot decide

the same and apply provisions u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act without forming an independent decision.

In 2002(2) CTC 329 - R. Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., the issue was in respect of stamp duty payable by the

transferee from the Housing Board on the instrument executed by the Housing Board and presented for registration.

This Court while deciding the said case has taken into consideration the S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, and M.

Ponnusamy and 42 Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors. 1999(2) L.W. 231 and the decision reported in 2001(2) CTC 449 �District

Collector, Erode District and Ors. v. M. Ponnusamy and held that, the Registrar cannot have any ground or reason or rhyme or basis or reason

whatsoever to doubt about the consideration paid by the transferee to the Housing Board � the transferor.

In 2006(4) L.W. 695 - The Sub Registrar, Adayar, Chennai v. Canara Bank, Saidapet Branch and Anr., the question came up for

consideration with regard to the calculation of stamp duty in respect of value of properties which were subject matter of a compromise decree as

fixed and directed by the Court. This Court in the said decision, held that market value is always a changing factor depending on various

circumstances and no exactitude is, in the nature of things possible and that normally the consideration stated as market value in a given instrument

brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exist which suggest fraudulent evasion.

In 2008 1 L.W. 743 (DB)- State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Janab Habeeb Jan.K, the issue came up for consideration with regard to the

stamp duty payable in respect of value of property in a sale deed executed by the Court pursuant to the decree for specific performance. This

Court has taken into consideration the judgment reported in 1998(3) L.W. 254 � Narayanaswamy Naicker v. District Collector of Chengalpattu

and Ors. and held that in case of execution of sale deed through Court in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, demand made on the

purchaser for payment of stamp duty on the basis of market value as on the date of execution and registration of the document would not be legal.

On a consideration of the principles laid down in those decisions, it is clear that the term ""market value"" itself is vague, uncertain and a matter of

guess work. The said issue also came up for consideration in the judgment reported in 2001 Supp. CTC 1 � J. Jayalalitha and five Ors. v. State

represented by Additional Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai and this Court has held as follows:

The term ""Market value"" itself is vague, uncertain and a matter of guesswork. It is also not defined in the Indian Stamp Act. Explanation to Section

47-A of the said Act reads as follows:

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 Revenue Authority of 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."" Author Manohar N. Dange in his

book titled ''Valuation of Immovable Properties'' has stated that the price that a willing purchaser pays to a willing seller for a property having due

regard with its existing conditions, with all its existing advantages and with its potential possibilities when laid out with most advantageous manner,

excluding any disadvantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property is transacted and this relates how the

market value applies to the valuation for compulsory purchases. He has quoted the judgment rendered by Justice Eve in South Eastern Rail Co. v.

L.C.C., that the value to be ascertained is the value to the vendor, and not its value to the purchaser and that in fixing the value to the vendor all

restrictions imposed on the user and enjoyment of the land in his hand are to be taken into account but the possibility of such restrictions being

modified or removed for his benefit is not to be overlooked and that the market price is not a conclusive test of real value. According to the author,

the concept of market value has to be understood in the light of what has been explained for the purpose of land acquisition and that the market

value of a property may be different in practice for different angles. According to him, the market vaue for a purpose is to be decided with due

relations to laws and purpose of the concerned valuer and the market value, though appears to be a very simple term, is very difficult to decide

under particular circumstances. He went on to add that a proper research is necessary which could determine the market value since in one case,

there can be heavy demand for smaller tenements with inadequate supply and in another case, the supply may be more than adequate but without

any demand. According to the author, the size of the plot has got a direct bearing on the willing purchasers in the market. The market value of a

land can be fixed only by taking into consideration several factors, like potentiality of a plot for development, shape of the plot, frontage and depth,

modification for depth, value in the sense of value of additional cost less depreciation and the most important factors which a valuer should study in

respect of a property are (1) advantages to the property and (2) disadvantages to the property.

J.A. Parks in his book, ''Principles and Practice of Valuation'' (Fifth Edition by D.N. Banerjee) by referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court

of British Columbia (Canada) in Rowan v. City of Vancouver, wherein it was held that ""a recent market price is not the best test of actual value.

The whole evidence surrounding the transaction, the condition of market and other factors have to be weighed carefully"", stated that valuation of

immovable property is not an exact science and it is an inquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties where there is more than ordinary

guesswork and where it would be unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. He has relied on the judgment of

this Court in Velayudam Chettiar v. Special Tahsildar 1959 (1) MLJ 348 and on the judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in Chand Kiran

Tyagi v. State of U.P. 1994 (24) ALR 196. The question of fair compensation is not an algebraic problem which would be solved by an abstract

formula as there is room for interference and inclinations of opinion which being more or less conjectural, are difficult to reduce to exact reasoning

or to explain to others and it is not fair to require an exact exposition of reason for the conclusions arrived at. The learned author has relied on the

observations of Bhagwati, J., as he then was, in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, . Bhagwati, J., observed in the

above judgment as follows:

We are conscious that this process of determination of market value adopted by us may savour of conjecture or guess, but the estimation of

market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence, it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of

conjecture or guess.

The author has also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. 1977 (1) SCC 694, wherein the

Supreme Court held that there is an element of guesswork inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value.

In G. Loganathan Vs. S. Chenniaya Chettiar, , this Court observed that the Supreme Court and other courts including Madras High Court have

held that guideline value is not market value and it will be dangerous to value a property according to the guideine value because there is no

guarantee of truth or correctness of the data given in the guideline value. The learned Judge also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court

rendered in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and Others Vs. Jasti Rohini (Smt) and Another, wherein it was held that the valuation register on the

basis of the notification u/s 47-A of the Stamp Act is for collection of revenue and it cannot be the basis for determination of the market value of

the land. It was further held, that from the decisions, it is clear that the guideline value cannot be the market value of the property as the guideline

value is intended for the collection of revenue and market value is the criteria to value the suit.

When we consider the above principles, it is clear that guideline and market value are two different concepts and that the term ""Market value"" is

vague, uncertain and a matter of guesswork. The market value, in my view, does not lie in the property contemplated to be purchased but lies in

the mind of the person contemmplating to purchase the said property. From the discussion made above, it could be seen that guideline value and

market value being two different concepts, the trial Judge was not justified in taking the market value for arriving at the conclusion that there was a

loss, since Explanation to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, which has been extracted above, states that the market value will be the price the

property would have fetched in open market.

The said judgment has also been confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha and Others,

A perusal of the impugned order and the counter affidavit filed by the second and third respondents would reveal that the documents have

already been registered and in pursuant to objections raised by the Local Audit in its reports 3/99 and 6/99 respectively, demand of additional

stamp duty was made on the basis of the market value on the date of the registration of the sale deed. No doubt Sub-section 3 of Section 47-A

clothe the Collector the suo motu power within 5 years from the date of registration of the any instrument of conveyance etc., not already referred

to him under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A to call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of

the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the conveyance etc., and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, has

reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of the said

property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and

the difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the persons liable to pay the duty. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned

orders would reveal that the appellants herein has failed to take into consideration any material nor any material was placed before them to arrive

at a conclusion that the market value of the property conveyed to the allottees under the respective deeds of sale has not been truly set forth and

that no reasons have been recorded that the allottees had fraudulently evaded the payment of stamp duty.

This Court in the judgment reported in A.J. Mapillai Mohadeen Vs. Sub-Registrar, Registration Department and Others, , has considered the

issue in respect of the value fixed by the Public Authority in a public auction sale. While deciding the said case, this Court has taken into

consideration, the judgment reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi, 2002(2) CTC 329 � R.

Sukumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, S.P. Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, and the latest decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court

of India reported in 2008(1) CTC 6 � State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain jewellers, has held that unless there is an under valuation of the

subject matter with fraudulent intention to evade proper payment of stamp duty, the respondents cannot impose such a heavy stamp duty on the

petitioner with regard to the document in question and hence, the value fixed by the Public Authority in the Public auction cannot be doubted after

reference u/s 47-A(1). The said case pertaining to the sale of the assets by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation which was taken

possession in exercise of powers u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and the payment of the stamp duty in respect of such sale. This

Court has ultimately held in the said decision that the market value stated in the instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct

and that value cannot be doubted or disbelieved.

This Court taking into consideration that the allotment of plots were made in the year 1985, and that the sale deeds have been registered in the

year 1999, 2000 and 2001, and no reason has been stated by the authority with regard to the fraudulent evasion of stamp duty payable on

instruments, and in the light of the principles laid down in the above said decisions, is of the view, there is no illegality or error apparent on the face

of the record in the impugned orders allowing the writ petitions.

In the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed and the orders passed in the writ petitions are confirmed. But in the circumstances, there will be

no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.