Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.Opposing the above prayer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that when the respondent, having purchased the lands covered under S.F. Nos.524/4 and 524/5 Nos.520/1A, 520/1B, 520/3B, 520/1D, 521/1 and 521/2 respectively situated at Lathuvadi Village, Namakkal Taluk and District to the extent of 2.96 and 6.73 acres under Sale Deed dated 05.04.2013 bearing Document Nos.1792/2013 and 1793/2013 respectively for the total sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.780 & 781 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.10817 to 10819 of 2017 Rs.1,60,00,000/- by paying stamp duty of Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.11,20,000/- respectively for running poultry shed, approached the fourth appellant for registration of the above sale deeds, the fourth appellant, after registering the same, doubting the deficit stamp affixed on the instrument, referred the same under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act. No doubt, the fourth appellant is having authority under Section 32-A of the Act to refer the instrument to the Collector of such District in which either the whole or any part of the property is situated for determining of the true market value of such property and the proper duty payable on the instrument, if he has reason to believe that the consideration set forth therein does not approximate to the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument. Referring to suo motu power under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Collector vested with suo motu power, within a period of four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeble on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), can also call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument and the duty payable thereon and if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.780 & 781 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.10817 to 10819 of 2017 after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon, but, the same cannot be deprived of the benefit of getting the document for five long years which has been mandated by the impugned judgment that the appellant registering authority shall, after registration of the instrument return or release the document to the owner of the conveyance. Therefore, no fault can be found to interfere with the impugned order. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the case of the District Registrar and others vs. R.Chidambara Raja Ratinam and others in W.A. (MD) No.1099 of 2016 and the Inspector General of Registration and others vs. Aswin Exim India Pvt. Limited in W.A. No.1346 of 2016 for a proposition that the registering authority, after registering the document, shall return the instrument to the owner of the instrument of conveyance, even if he referred the instrument/ sale deed/gift to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the registering authority cannot refuse to return or release the document while referring the matter for appeal before the appropriate forum. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.780 & 781 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.10817 to 10819 of 2017

6.But we are not able to find any justification on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The reason being that Section 47-A speaks clearly that if the registering authority, while registering any instrument of conveyance, namely, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) has reason to believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon and on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance and the duty as aforesaid and the difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. The issue involved in the present case has already been considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Champaklal vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in AIR 1988 Gujarat 29 (1). While referring to Sections 60 and 61 of the Registration Act, the Gujarat High Court has held that Sections 60 and 61 cannot be so https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.A.Nos.780 & 781 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.10817 to 10819 of 2017 interpreted as to impose an absolute obligation on the registering officer to return the document immediately after registration even though it becomes necessary for him either to retain the same or to deal with it in a similar manner if some other law requires that to be done. It is pertinent to extract the above judgment as under: