Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. With consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. The case of the petitioner is as under :

(i) The property originally belonged to M/s.Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries, Tirukoilur Taluk, a partnership concern having its Head Office at Tirukoilur and factory at R.S.No.77/4 Kuladeepamangalam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk. The said property was mortgaged with the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (hereinafter called TIIC). As the said Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries had committed default, TIIC foreclosed the loan by taking possession of the property under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and conducted the tender-cum-public auction on 29.11.2006 bringing the property for auction. The petitioner had offered the highest bid amount of Rs.4 lakhs in the tender-cum-public auction and TIIC accepted the offer of the petitioner and agreed to sell the properties viz., property measuring 1.23 acres with building in R.S.No.77/4 and also 0.05 cents out of 0.85 cents in R.S.No.77/6 situated in Kuladeepmanagalm Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District. The auction was confirmed on 06.03.2007.

(ii) In view of the acceptance of the offer, TIIC executed sale deed over the properties by a sale deed dated 05.04.2007 and pursuant to the said sale deed, possession was also handed over to the petitioner. In order to register the sale deed, as the value of the property was Rs.4 lakhs, the petitioner paid Rs.32,000/- towards stamp duty. But, the 1st respondent, without accepting the same, sent the document to the 2nd respondent for proper valuation and notification. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has fixed the stamp duty at Rs.2,16,000/- taking into account the market value of the property and issued the proceedings to the effect that the petitioner has to pay Rs.2,16,000/-, else the documents will not be released. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23.01.2007 before the 3rd respondent stating that he purchased the property from TIIC, which is a public authority and, therefore, he is not liable to pay more than what is stated in the sale deed and the said appeal is pending.

(iii) It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has paid consideration more than what has been recited in the deed of conveyance executed by TIIC; moreover, it is beyond one's apprehension that TIIC, a statutory body, would receive excess amount that what has been actually paid and recited as sale consideration in the deed of conveyance executed by it in favour of the auction purchaser; merely because the market value is high, the 1st respondent cannot have any reason whatsoever to doubt about the consideration paid by him to TIIC.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also gone through the records.

9. An analysis of the case wold reveal that the petitioner is the auction purchaser of the property originally belonging to one M/s.Sri Raghavendra Splints Industries, Tirukoilur, a partnership concern, situated at R.S.No.77/4 Kuladeepamangalam Village, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District, and the said property was mortgaged with TIIC. As there was a default of payment, TIIC had brought the property in public auction under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and the said auction was conducted on 29.11.2006. The petitioner being the highest bidder had offered Rs.4.00 lakhs in the tender-cum-public auction. The said offer has been accepted and thereafter it was agreed to sell the property measuring 1.23 acres with building in R.S.No.77/4 and also 0.05 cents out of 0.85 cents in R.S.No.77/6 situate in Kuladeepamangalam village. Accordingly, TIIC has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 05.04.2007 and pursuant to the same, possession was also handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has taken steps to get the property registered, for which value of the property was fixed at Rs.4.00 lakhs by the pubic authority and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.32,000/- towards stamp duty. However, the first respondent, without accepting the said amount, referred the document to the second respondent for proper valuation and notification. Pursuant to that, the second respondent fixed the stamp duty at Rs.2,46,000/-, taking into account the market value of the property and issued the proceedings to the effect that the petitioner has to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,14,000/- and informed the petitioner that unless the said amount is paid, the document will not be released. Aggrieved over the action of the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent on 23.02.2007, on the ground that the subject property has been purchased in the public auction and the value fixed by the public authority and, therefore, he is not liable to pay more than the value fixed by the public authority in the sale deed.