R.SUBRAMANIAN,J. - (1.) All these appeals have been filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") challenging the orders passed by the Inspector General of Registration-cum-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the third respondent, exercising suo motu powers under Section 47-A (6) of the Act. The sale deeds in question are dated 15.04.2008. Form-I notice was issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamps, Salem on 12.05.2008. After conducting an inspection on 29.05.2008, a provisional order came to be passed under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. As per the said order, the value was fixed at Rs. 216/- per sq. meter. It is not in dispute that the appellants had accepted the said valuation and paid the deficit stamp duty as well as the registration charges demanded therein. On 25.03.2010, the third respondent issued a notice invoking suo-motu powers seeking an explanation from the appellants as to why the price of the land shall not be fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. The appellants sent a reply to the said notice on 26.05.2010. After enquiry, the third respondent passed an order on 11.02.2014 fixing the price of the land at Rs. 50/- per sq.ft equivalent to Rs. 538 per sq.m., and demanded deficit stamp duty as well as the registration charges based on the said fixation. Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed. Heard Mr. V. Karthick, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. V. Nicholas learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) for the respondents.
(2.) According to the learned Senior Counsel, in order to invoke suo motu power under Sub Section (6) of Section 47-A of the Act, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has to enter upon a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the orders passed by the second respondent viz., the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem and thereafter, alone he could initiate proceedings under Section 47-A (6) of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the judgments of this Court in Rajendran v. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and two others (2012) 3 Law Weekly 606 and M/s. Karpagavinayaga Associates v. The Inspector General of Registration of Tamil Nadu-cum-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai ((2014) 5 Law Weekly 280) .
(3.) Mr. M. Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader (CS) appearing for the respondents, would contend that the subjective satisfaction would relate to loss of revenue, because of the under valuation of the properties, the same would satisfy the requirements of Section 47-A (6) under the same Act. In the order impugned, the third respondent has observed as follows: ;