Madras High Court
Mrs.Nalina Veeraraghavan vs The Chennai Metropolitan on 9 July, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2893 (MAD.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition No.3917 of 2008 Mrs.Nalina Veeraraghavan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer/ Senior Estate Officer, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8. 2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Chengleput. ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on the stamp duty paid on the actual sale consideration received by them and consequently direct the second respondent to receive and register the same without insisting stamp duty on the guideline value in respect of Plot No.11 in LIG Block No.10, Gudalur, Maramalai Nagar 603 209. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran, for R.1 Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP for R.2 O R D E R
The petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to receive and register the sale deed executed by the first respondent in her favour without insisting on stamp duty on the guideline value and accept the stamp duty paid on the actual sale consideration stipulated in the sale deed relating to the property at Plot No.11 in LIG Block No.10, Gudalur, Maramalai Nagar 603 209.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the property in question was allotted to her under Low Income Group, on hire purchase scheme for a sum of Rs.1,17,110/- and she had to pay the same in monthly instalments. After paying the entire sale consideration, the petitioner requested the first respondent to hand over the said plot and execute the sale deed. The first respondent had also executed a draft sale in her favour. But, the second respondent insisted upon payment of the stamp duty as per the guideline value for registering the same. Hence, the petitioner had approached this Court for the relief set out earlier.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the first respondent, the Government body allotted the property in question to the petitioner by receiving the total sale consideration of Rs.1,17,110/- and executed a draft sale deed in her favour, the second respondent cannot insist the petitioner to pay the stamp duty as per the guideline value for registering the same.
4. Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that since the first respondent has allotted the plot in question to the petitioner after receiving the total sale consideration of Rs.1,17,110/-, the petitioner has to pay stamp duty only on the said amount and not as per the market value prevailing on the date of registration of the same.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent contended that the petitioner has to pay the stamp duty as per the guideline value as on the date of registration of the sale deed and he has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 State of Rajasthan & others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, held that the stamp duty has to be payable as per the guideline value prevailing on the date of registration of the document.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent.
7. It is not in dispute that the property in question had been allotted to the petitioner by the first respondent vide his communication dated 28.09.1998 on hire purchase scheme for a sum of Rs.1,17,110/- which was payable in monthly instalments. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration and the first respondent has executed a draft sale deed in her favour and the second respondent insisted upon the payment of the stamp duty as per the market value of the property. This question came in for consideration before this Court and the same is reported in 1997 (2) C.T.C. 617- S.P.Padmavathi v. State of Tamilnadu, wherein this Court has held that in case one of the parties being a Government authority, the presumption should be that there is no concealment of actual sale consideration and the stamp duty should be payable on the basis of the sale consideration stipulated in the deed and the Registration Authorities shall not insist on stamp duty on the guideline value at the time of registration. The said decision had been followed in another case reported in 2002 (2) C.T.C. 329 Sugumaran v. State of Tamilnadu. In fact, this Court in W.P.No.33861 of 2007 by order dated 02.11.2007 had upheld the contention now raised by the petitioner.
8. The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, as stated already, relied on the judgment reported in 2008 (1) C.T.C. 60, wherein the question that was placed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that whether the valuation should be assessed on the market rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed or when the parties entered into an agreement of sale. No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the valuation should be on the market value prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed. That is the case, where it related to two individuals. An agreement was entered into between two individuals and since one of the party viz., the vendor thereon refused to enforce the agreement of sale, the purchaser thereon had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and obtained a decree. He has filed an application for execution of the decree and the Court was called upon to execute the sale deed in his favour. When the copy of the sale deed had been sent to the Registration authorities, the Registration authorities insisted to pay stamp duty on the market value prevailing on the said date. This has been challenged by the purchaser thereon before the High Court of Rajasthan, which has taken a view that the Sub Registrar cannot insist on payment of stamp duty on the market value prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed. This has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the stamp duty shall be payable on the market value prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed. By citing the said judgment, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent contended that in the present case also, the petitioner has to pay stamp duty on the market value prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed. But, I am unable to countenance the said argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader. That is the matter between two individuals and the purchaser of an agreement of sale had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and he has succeeded and sought to execute the decree. But, in the present case on hand, one of the Government body viz., the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, had allotted the property in question to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,17,110/- and also executed a draft sale deed in her favour. Hence, the second respondent cannot insist on payment of stamp duty as per the guideline value for registration of the same. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment cited by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents may not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to receive and register the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner without insisting on the stamp duty on the guideline value and accept the stamp duty paid on the actual sale consideration stipulated in the sale deed relating to the property at Plot No.11 in LIG Block No.10, Gudalur, Maramalai Nagar 603 209 and release the document to the petitioner. The writ petition stands allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.
sbi To
1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer/ Senior Estate Officer, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The Sub Registrar, Registration Department, Chengleput