| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 6196
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : W.P. (MD). No. 22071 of 2026 & W.M.P. (MD). Nos. 16436 & 16438 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN |
| Parties : P. Anandkumar Versus The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Virudhunagar & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: C. Prithviraj, Advocate. For the Respondents: R. Parthiban, Special Government Pleader. |
| Date of Judgment : 04-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A -
|
| Summary :- |
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A
- Registration Act, 1908, Section 47-A
- Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Rule 4
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Catch Words:
Stamp duty, undervaluation, notice, joint inspection, representation, provisional market value, reply, assessment
Summary:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued under Section 47‑A of the Registration Act, alleging arbitrary valuation of his property and seeking a fresh enquiry under Section 47‑A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The respondents contended that the notice was issued in accordance with Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, and that it was merely a proposal pending the petitioner’s reply. The Court held that the petitioner must file a proper written reply to the notice before any further proceedings, including a joint inspection, can be entertained. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an additional reply and, if desired, request a joint inspection. The petition was therefore dismissed without costs, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Proceedings No. Tha. Pa.No.S2/33/2026, dated 18.05.2026 and quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, after furnishing all the materials relied upon to the petitioner, affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing, conducting a joint inspection of the subject property in the presence of the petitioner and the concerned departmental officials, independently determining the nature and extent of the structures existing in the property as on the date of execution and registration of Document No.1816 of 2024 and thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.)
1. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 18.05.2026, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why differential Stamp Duty and registration charges of Rs.29,99,130/- should not be recovered after the petitioner had registered a Sale Deed in Doc.No.1816/2024 in his favour on 27.08.2024, declaring the value of the asset as Rs.38,42,788/-.
4. It appears that the second respondent has given a report to the third respondent on 23.12.2024 based on which, in the impugned notice, the value of the land that was the subject matter of the Sale Deed dated 27.08.2024 registered as Doc.No.1810/2024, has been arrived at Rs.4,66,90,475/- as against the declared value of Rs.38,42,788/-.
5. It is noticed that the petitioner has purchased the land as detailed below:
S.No
| Survey Numbers
| Extent of land
| 1.
| 545/2A
| 0.29.00
| 2.
| 543/2A
| 0.88.55
| 3.
| 544/2A1
| 1.01.50
| 4.
| 544/3A1
| 3.53.00
|
6. It appears that at the time of registration of the document, the petitioner has paid the Stamp Duty and registration charges of Rs.2,69,205/- and thus, the petitioner has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.29,99,130/- (Rs.32,68,335/- - Rs.2,68,205/-).
7. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent’s report dated 23.12.2024 has been issued behind the back of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader submits that the impugned notice has been issued strictly in accordance with the provision of Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. A special reference is made to Rule 4 of the said Rules, which stipulates the procedure on receipt of reference under Section 47A of the Registration Act, 1908, reads as under:
“4. Procedure on receipt of reference under Section 47-A.—
(1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, from a registering officer, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form I,
(a) to every person by whom, and
(b) to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed,
informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him his representations, if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice.
(2) The Collector may, if he thinks fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued.
(3) The Collector may for the purpose of his enquiry—
(a) call for arty information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority;
(b) examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and
(c) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned,
(4) After considering the representations, if any received from the person to whom notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued, and after examining the records and evidence before him, the Collector shall pass an order in writing provisionally determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable. The basis on which the provisional market value was arrived at shall be clearly indicated in the order.”
9. That apart, it is submitted that the impugned notice is only a proposal and there is no finality.
10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, I am of the view that the challenge to the impugned notice is without any merits. It is for the petitioner to give a proper reply distancing himself of the proposal by a proper reply to the notice issued under Section 47A of the Registration Act, 1908.
11. In case the petitioner desires, a joint inspection can be carried on. However, without filing a reply, it is not open for the petitioner to scuttle the proceedings initiated in accordance with Section 47A of the Registration Act, 1908 read with Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
12. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to give a proper reply in addition to the reply given by the petitioner already on 27.05.2026 and thereafter, request for the joint inspection to subtantiate the defence in the reply.
13. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulation, the respondents shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law based on the submission of the petitioner. The assessment shall be made strictly in accordance with said Act and Rules made thereunder.
14. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
|
| |
