Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the Notice dated 17.8.2009 and to direct the respondents to return the Registered Document No.1188/09 pertaining to the Scheduled Property mentioned in the Writ Petition to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1981, the property in question was allotted to the petitioner Company through SIDCO and a deed of assignment was executed by SIDCO on 04.01.1983. By G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 11.10.2007, SIDCO was permitted to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and a sale deed was also executed on 02.03.2009 in favour of the petitioner company and the consideration was Rs.54,000/-, which was already paid by the petitioner to SIDCO at the time of allotment in the year 1981. It is the further case of the petitioner that when the sale deed was duly stamped and submitted for registration on 15.05.2009, during the course of registration, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner orally that the sale deed was being impounded and would be referred to the 2nd respondent under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Subsequently, by a communication dated 21.05.2009, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the registered sale deed No.1188/09 has been referred to the 2nd respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. Whileso, the impugned notice under Form I under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 was issued on 17.08.2009. After sending a reply to the said notice on 21.09.2009, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking the relief stated supra.

4. No counter has been filed in this Case. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3, contended that if the property is under valued, they are entitled to take action against SIDCO.

5. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the reference made by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 is valid or not?

6. Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act reads as follows:-

"47-A Instruments of conveyance etc. undervalued how to dealt with:-
Whereas THE PURCHASER has paid the said sum and executed a Memorandum of Understanding.
Whereas THE VENDOR has been permitted to execute sale deed for the said PROPERTY by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 11.10.2008 issued by Small Industries (SIC) Department in favour of the purchaser, subject to certain conditions".

When that being the case, the act of the 1st respondent in referring the registered sale deed to the 2nd respondent on the ground of undervaluation is not sustainable. Even though the argument of the learned Government Advocate appears to be reasonable, no documents have been produced before this Court to show that action has been taken against SIDCO.