Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in THE DISTRICT COLLOECTOR, ERODE v. PONNUSAMY reported in 2001 (2) MLJ 458, whereby and where under it is held as follows:-

?If the document presented sets forth the market value and all other facts necessary, truly, the document has to be registered. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 3 enable the registering authority, to find out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument or not. If the registering authority, on the basis of this enquiry, has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property. But, even here, before referring the matter, he shall do so only after registering the said instrument.

It could be seen that if the document is registered without any doubt as to the under-valuation of the document, or any reasonable belief as to the true value set forth in the instrument, and once it is registered, there is no further scope for holding the enquiry after registration regarding the value of the property for the purpose of reference. Therefore, necessarily before registering the document, the Registering Officer is entitled either to accept the valuation or refuse to accept the valuation. If he accepts the valuation, he has to register the document; if he does not accept the valuation also, he shall register the document and then refer the same to the Collector. Therefore, once the document is registered, it pre-supposes that the register is satisfied about the valuation or it could be that he was not satisfied about the valuation, but followed it by a reference after registration. In the reply to the legal notice, the third appellant, after one year and eleven months, has stated that he is awaiting the report of the valuation for the purpose of reference. Thus, there is a clear violation of Section 47-A of the Act.

9. At this stage, this Court, to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice, cites the following decisions:-

(i) In Sub-Registrar, Chingleput and Others v. R.Rama reported in (2008 Writ L.R.260), whereby and where under, it is observed as under:-
"If a authority registering such document has a reason to believe that market value of the property has not been truly set forth, he may after registering such document refer the same to the Collector ? Such registering authority is not vested with the power to demand payment of additional duty nor he has got any power to postpone the registration of the document ? His only authority / power is to make an endorsement on such registered document regarding valuation, refer the matter to the Collector for determination of proper stamp duty payable thereon and return the document to the person entitled to receive such document.
?If the registering authority still has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he has right to refer the instrument to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, for determination of market value for the purpose of ascertaining the proper duty under the document ? It is incumbent on the part of the registering authority to give his reasons to arrive at such conclusion.
This procedure of conducting enquiry by the Collector as per the above said Rules is made applicable in respect of the powers of the Collector to conduct suo motu enquiry under Section 47A(3) of the Act.'