1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICATION)
W.P.No. 425 of 2024
S.Santosh, Male aged 36 years,
S/O.B.Subash Chandra Bose,
No25/13,Pidariyar Kovil Street,
George Town, Chennai-01. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mullaima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai -28.
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamp),
Singaravelar Maligai,
Chennai.
3. The Deputy Registrar Officer,(Administration)
Chennai-20.
4. The 2nd Joint Registrar, (Joint -II)
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpet-603002. ...Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF S. MOHANASUNDARAM
I, S.Santosh, Male aged 35 years, S/o B.Subash Chandra Bose, residing at
Old Door No.25/13,Pidariyar Kovil Street, George Town, Chennai-01, do here by
solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.
1. I submits that I am residing in the above said address along with my
family for the past 15 years. I am practising as an Advocate in George Town Court,
at Chennai.
2
2. I submits that I purchased the land measuring an extent of 2320 Sq.Ft.
situated in Survey Nos.69/2A, 69/2B & 79/7, bearing Plot No.24, Vacant Land in
“VIP ENCLAVE” Ninnakarai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District,
by means registered sale deed dated 04.03.2015 executed by the power agent
Manohar and presented in the 4th respondent, as vendor was confronting difficulty
of paying the stamp duty.
3. I respectfully submits that the said document was registered as Doc.No.
4423 of 2015 dated 04.03.2015 the value of the property covered under sale deed
dated 04.03.2015 was indicated as Rs.11,61,000/-(Eleven Lakhs Sixty One
Thousand Only) at the rate of Rs.500/- per Sq.Ft.
4. I further respectfully submits that the respondent entertained a doubt
regarding the value of the property indicated in the sale deed dated 04.03.2015 and
therefore, the referred the matter to the 2 nd respondent for determination of the
correct market value of the property, as contemplated under section 47-A of the
Indian Stamp Act.
5. I further respectfully submits that the 2 nd respondent, after inquiry
determining the market value of the property at Rs.1,600/-(Thousand Six Hundred
only) per Sq.Ft., So, the 4th respondent not released the sale deed Doc.No. 4423 of
2015 to me. While so, to the shock and surprise of me, on be, that I already paid
Rs.81,270/-(Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy only) as stamp duty
registering the sale deed. But on of sudden, that 4 th respondent demanded to pay
Rs.37,13,883/-(Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty
Three Only) as stamp duty.
3
6. So I had sent a representation dated 28.07.2015 to 2 nd respondent without
calling me for any enquiry suo moto, the 3 rd respondent had sent a notice in
C.P.No.81/15/15 dated 30.03.2016 by reducing the stamp duty of Rs.1,600/-
(Thousand Six Hundred Only) per Sq.Ft., to Rs.1,300/-(Thousand Three Hundred
Only) per Sq.Ft., from stamp duty Rs.37,13,883/-(Thirty Seven Lakhs Thirteen
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Three Only) to Rs.1,29,850/-(One Lakhs
Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Fifty Only).
7. I further respectfully submits that against the ordered dated 30.08.2016 I
preferred appeal before the 1st respondent and same was confirmed on 03.08.2023.
8. I further respectfully submits that against the order of 2 nd respondent I
preferred the appeal before 1st respondent against the final order C.P.No.81/15/A6/6
that there is no proper road, facilities and about the valuation of the area.
9. I further respectfully submits that the 1 st respondent sent intimation on
23.01.2018 in En.16630/NI/2017 for peace meeting.
10. I further respectfully submits that On 22.06.2023 a personal hearing
notice was received to me in Memo.No.44815/NI/2016 dated 22.06.2023, on that
hearing going to be held on 05.07.2023 at 3.00.A.m., at 1st respondent office.
11. I further respectfully submits that I had approached before 05.07.2023
before the 1st respondent stated about the non development in the area no road
facility no water facility and sewage facility but 1 st respondent confirmed the order
2nd respondent and further more the 1st respondent granted 2 months time to
payment of valuation of Rs.1,300/-(Thousand Three Hundred Only) per Sq.Ft.,(i.e.,)
4
Rs.1,29,850/-(One Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Fifty Only) from the date of
order and to get back the sale deed Doc.No. 4423 of 2015 dated 04.03.2015, if I
fails to pay, that I have to pay 1% for remaining period.
12. I further respectfully submits that if the 4 th respondent entertained a
doubt regarding the value of land mentioned in the sale deed Dated 04.05.2015, the
duty of 4th respondent has to get the clarification as per provision section 47A (2) of
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 but same was not done.
13. While so, after a lapse of one year, the 1 st respondent, in exercise of
powers conferred under section 47-A(2) of Indian Stamp Act 1899, issued notice
dated 30.08.2016 said to have been sent by the 1st respondent and called upon me to
submits their objection if any within 15 days.
16. I further respectfully submits that section 47-A(6) of Indian Stamp Act
1899 can be invoked by the 1st respondent only if it appears that by reason of
improper assessment of the land value of his subordinates, prejudice has been
caused to the interest of the revenue. However in the impugned order, the 1 st
respondent has not recorded has been caused to the interest of the revenue by reason
of the order dated 03.08.2023.
17. I further respectfully submits that the 1 st respondent is justified in
invoking his Suo Moto power conferred under section 47-A(6) of Indian Stamp Act
1899 to enhanced the market value of the property.
5
18. The value of the property from Rs.500/-(Five Hundred Only) per Sq.Ft.,
to Rs.1,300/-(One Thousand Three Hundred Only) Per Sq.Ft., as per prevailing
guideline value at the time of registration of the sale deed.
19. Sub Section (2)(3) and (6) of 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1989.
20. Undoubtedly, as per 47-A(6) of Indian Stamp Act 1989, the 2 nd
respondent is conferred with Suo Moto power to review, very modify or set aside an
order passed by his subordinate, if it is shown by reason of such order passed by his
subordinates under 47-A(2) & (3) of Indian Stamp Act 1989, interest of the revenue
is prejudiced for arriving at such conclusion, the 1 st respondent has to make an
enquiry or cause his subordinate to such enquiry to gain information before hand
that the market value of the property, on the date of registration of the instrument,
was either under valued or not property valued befitting the guideline value of
property.
21. The Principal object with which the Indian Stamp Act 1989, was enacted
is to ensure generation of revenue and protect the interest of revenue by adopting
Fiscal Measure for achieving the objects of this Act, certain have to be adopted to
ensure that the interest of the revenue is not in any manner prejudiced by reason of
under the value of property or improperly valuing the property.
22. The power conferred under Section 47-A(6) of Indian Stamp Act 1989,
the Chief Controlling Authority/Inspector General of Registration has to record his
subjective satisfaction that by reason of an order passed by his subordinates, interest
of revenue is prejudiced or affected.
6
23. However, no reason was assigned any reasons as to what prompted him
to enhance the market value of land from Rs.500/-(Five Hundred Only) per Sq.Ft.,
to Rs.1,300/-(One Thousand Three Hundred Only) per Sq.Ft.,, Absolutely there is
no material to arrived subjective satisfaction, that interest of revenue has been
prejudiced by reason of the order passed by the 1 st respondent is bereft of any
material particulars and it was me chancily passed. The 1 st respondent also did not
take any effort to compare the documents that might have been registered during
the period when I had presented the sale deed dated 04.03.2015.
24. Further more the 1st respondent has discussed as to what was the
prevailing guideline value or more value at time of presentation of sale deed.
25. I further respectfully submits that 1 st respondent also did not refer about
any other instrument presented for registration in respect of the same locality during
the relevant time.
26. I further respectfully submits that I have no other option except to
compel the respondents to exercise their duty covered under the Constitution of
India Passing order, No Prejudice will be caused to the Respondents.
27. I further respectfully submits that in the above circumstances, I have no
other immediate efficacious alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble
Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. I declare that I have not filed any writ petition previously for the relief
sought for herein and no such petition is pending in any Court.
7
29. I submits that we have no other alternative, speedy and efficacious
remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under
Article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus. We are
rushing to knock the doors of this Hon’ble Court seeking justice to them.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may praying issue a a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the order of the 1 st
respondent bearing order in Na.Ka. No. 44815/NI/2016 dated 03.08.2016 and
quash the same and consequently directing the 3 rd respondents to release the sale
deed in Doc.No. 4423/2015 (Sale) dated 13.04.2015 Survey No.69/2A, 2B and 79/7
as per Patta Survey No.69/4, “Vip Enclave” Plot No.24, 2320 Sq.ft., No.55,
Ninnakarai Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District, in accordance with
law and pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirm at Chennai on
this Day of 29TH August 2024 and
the Contents of this Affidavit was
read over and Explained to him
in Tamil and he signed his name
in My presence.
8
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICATION)
W.P.No. 425 of 2024
S.Mohanasundaram, Male aged 57 years,
S/o.K.K.Shanmugam,
Old Door No.138/1B, New Door No.28,
Pidariyar Kovil Street,
George Town, Chennai-01. ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mullaima Nagar, Mandavelipakkam,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai -28.
2. The District Revenue Officer (Stamp),
Singaravelar Maligai,
Chennai.
3. The Deputy Registrar Officer,(Administration)
Chennai-20.
4. The 2nd Joint Registrar, (Joint -II)
Kancheepuram High Road,
Chengalpet-603002. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION
The address for service of all notice and process on the petitioner is of this
counsel M/s. Moniesha .S at chamber no.251, New Addl. Law Chamber, High
Court, Chennai 600 104.
The address for service of notice on the respondents is as stated below.
9
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the entire records relating to the order of the 1 st respondent bearing order in
Na.Ka. No. 44815/NI/2016 dated 03.08.2016 and quash the same and consequently
directing the 3rd respondents to release the sale deed in Doc.No. 4423/2015 (Sale)
dated 13.04.2015 Survey No.69/2A, 2B and 79/7 as per Patta Survey No.69/4, “Vip
Enclave” Plot No.24, 2320 Sq.ft., No.55, Ninnakarai Village, Chengalpet Taluk,
Kancheepuram District, in accordance with law and pass such further or other
orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
Dated at Chennai on this 29th day of August 2024.
Counsel for petitioner
10
In the High Court of
Judicature, at Madras
W.P.No. 425 2024
WRIT PETITION AND
TYPEDSET OF PAPERS
PAVITHRA.A
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
