K.A.SWAMI, C.J. - (1.) :- This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-7-1991 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 2214 of 1991. Hence the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.
(2.) The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18-10-1990 bearing No.60608/B4/90, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty not on the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- mentioned as consideration amount in the sale deed, but on the market value, which, according to the second respondent, was in the order of Rs. 7,06,312.50. Therefore, additional stamp duty of Rs. 56,077/- should be paid, in addition to Rs. 35,750/- already paid.
(3.) Learned single Judge has taken a view that the market value of the property, as on the date of the execution of the sale deed, has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on the document of conveyance. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent does not call for interference. The relevant, portion of the order of the learned single Judge is as follows :-"As such, the specific performance is an equitable remedy given by the Court to enforce against the defendant the duty of doing what he agreed by contract to do. That is all. Obtaining a decree for specific performance does not mean and cannot also, in my view, used as a lever to avoid the proper stamp duty to be paid on the instrument to be executed and registered nearly after five years. On the facts of the instant case, just because a decree for specific performance is passed, it does not mean that it is binding on the authorities under the Registration Act as well as the Stamp Act. They are bound by the provisions of the Act and when a person produces an instrument for registration, it is open to them to arrive at the duty based on the market value on the date of the registration of the document. In fact, S. Ramalingam, J., reported in R. Thiaga Sundaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 Madras 82, has held that when the State is not a party, the order of the civil court regarding the market value is not binding on the Registering Authority. I am also supported by the views expressed by a Division Bench of this Court and also by the judgment of Balasubramanyan, J., which has been extracted above.By no stretch of imagination it can be said that there is oppression. Explanation to S. 47A of the Act is not used as oppression on the facts of the case. This Court can take judicial note of the fact as to how the prices are spiralling up and as such, in my view, the petitioner has to pay the duty on the market value as fixed by the respondents. I am not able to see any error in the conclusion arrived at by the second respondent in the impugned order that as per sub-sec. (7) of S. 2 read with the Explanation to S. 47A of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty has to be collected based on the market value as per the guidelines on the date of the execution of the document. There are no merits in the writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs.";