Madras High Court
K.K.Thirumurugan vs The Inspector General
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED;06.01.2011 CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.NO.29226 OF 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.K.Thirumurugan ..Petitioner vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration O/o I.G. of Registration Santhome High Road Mylapore, Chennai 4 2.The Assistant Inspector General of Registration Chennai South Saidapet Chennai 600 015 3.The Sub-Registrar O/o Sub-Registrar Pallavaram Chennai ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept the value of Sale Certificate dated 28.10.2010 issued in favour of the petitioner presented on 4.11.2010 and register the document and return the same with respect to property comprised in S.No.166/3B3 part in plot No.16 to 23 of PMD Nagar admeasuring 18,349 sq.ft of land with structures constructed thereon in 122, Kovilambakkam village, Vadakkupatti Road, Saidapet Taluk now Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. for petitioner :Mr.M.Muthappan for respondents :Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Government Advocate (for R1 to R3) O R D E R
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the value of the sale certificate dated 28.10.2010 issued in favour of the petitioner presented on 4.11.2010 and register the document and return the same with respect to property comprised in S.No.166/3B3 part in plot No.16 to 23 of PMD Nagar admeasuring 18,349 sq.ft of land with structures constructed thereon in 122, Kovilambakkam village, Vadakkupatti Road, Saidapet Taluk now Sholinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
2. The petitioner K.K.Thirumurugan, by participating in a public auction held on 11.6.2009, was declared as the highest bidder for the amount of Rs.1,76,40,000/-. After he was declared as the highest bidder, he has paid 25% of the bid amount, which comes to Rs.44,10,000/- on 11.6.2010 itself. In the meanwhile, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a writ petition was filed by the borrower challenging the invocation of the SARFAESI Act by the Ind Bank Housing Ltd., and the same was dismissed by this Court in W.P.No.10594/2008 on 1.10.2010. In the said order a direction was given by this Court to the authorised officer of the said Ind Bank Housing Limited for collecting the balance amount from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has also paid the balance bid amount on 23.10.2010. After the payment of the entire amount by the petitioner, the authorised officer also issued a Sale Certificate on 28.10.2010. Thereafter, the said Sale certificate was presented before the second respondent for registration of the document with necessary stamp duty, namely, Rs.14,11,200/- besides registration charges of a sum of Rs.1,76,400/- on 14.11.2010. The second respondent without registering the document presented by the petitioner kept it as pending Document No.360/2010 and declined to register the same and also refused to release the document on the ground that the value of the property is less than the market value. The petitioner has made a representation on 01.12.2010 requesting the third respondent to register and release the document. But there was no response. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in V.N.DEVADOSS V.CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER-CUM-INSPECTOR wherein it is held that the registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. He has further referred to an order wherein this Court by considering a similar issue in W.P.No.6260/2008 dated 18.11.2008 directed the Sub-Registrar to register the said certificate stating that between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, certain amount might be agreeable as sale consideration. The sale consideration mentioned in the sale certificate shall be taken into account by the registering officer and only after accepting the price disclosed in the document of conveyance, the registration shall be done.
4. The learned Government Advocate states that at the time of registration the registering authority is entitled to look into the fact whether the property is carrying any charge or not.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the V.N.Devadoss's case has occasioned to consider the similar issued as follows:
"15.The stand of the State is that what has been disclosed is clearly a sale value and the same cannot be termed as market value. There is fallacy in this argument.
16.Market value is a changing concept. The Explanation to sub-rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.
17. Sale has been defined under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882( in short "the TP Act"). Although the Act has not included the definition of sale, Section 2(10) of the Act defines "conveyance" as including a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any civil court by which property whether immovable or movable or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically, provided for by Schedule I or Schedule I-A, as the case may be."
The observations of the Apex Court in the above said case is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner, for the reason that the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. Hence, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non-disclosure of the correct price. That being so, there is no possibility of any undervaluation and therefore, Section 47-A of the Act has no application. Since the observation as well as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the abovementioned judgment is clearly applicable to the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner being the highest bidder in a public auction held by the officer of the Ind Bank Housing Limited on 11.6.2010 and he was also issued with a sale certificate by the authorised officer mentioning the price of the property, the third respondent is directed to register the sale deed and release the document in accordance with law.
6. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1/2010 is disposed of.
sal To
1.The Inspector General of Registration O/o I.G. of Registration Santhome High Road Mylapore, Chennai 4
2.The Assistant Inspector General of Registration Chennai South Saidapet Chennai 600 015
3.The Sub-Registrar O/o Sub-Registrar Pallavaram Chennai