S.Vaidyanathan, J. - (1.)The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the first respondent relating to his proceedings Tha.Ka.No.274/03, dated 31.10.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to release the document No.2540 of 2003 pending in the second respondent's office to the petitioner herein.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed in question was executed pursuant to the Civil Court's judgment and decree in a suit for specific performance. The second respondent registered the document/sale deed as Document No.2540 of 2003 and stated that the stamp duty has not been paid on the market value of the property as on the date of execution and hence, proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act were resorted to and the document was referred to the first respondent for determination of proper stamp duty payable thereon, pursuant to which, the first respondent issued Form-1 notice under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, asking the petitioner to establish that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the sale deed and to produce evidence within 21 days from the date of service of the notice. Hence, challenging the reference under Section 47-A of the said Act, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the relier stated supra. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court (G.Mary Chellathai and another Vs. Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration and Principal Revenue Authority, Office of the IG of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai and others,2017 CDJ(MHC) 5307), (Division Bench of this Court) (The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Jayalakshmi, 2009 1 CTC 305) and (Division Bench of this Court) (Padmavathi.S.P. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 2 CTC 617).
(3.)Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the stamp duty should have to be paid only on the market value of the property on the date of execution and hence, the impugned order is justified in law.