1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent and the consequential notice issued by the 4th respondent, dated 28.11.2014 seeking to recover the deficit stamp duty from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had undervalued the property and paid a lesser stamp duty.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased the subject property through a registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.2006 and this document was registered on the file of the 1 st respondent in Document No.2470/2006.

3. The petitioners received a notice from the 1 st respondent wherein the petitioners were informed that there is a short fall of Rs.96,000/- towards stamp duty and Rs.12,000/- towards registration charges. The notice was allegedly issued by the 1 st respondent based on an audit objection that was made subsequently and the petitioners were advised to take advantage of the Samadhan Scheme and pay 60% of the deficit amount.

4. The petitioners have taken a stand that they went to the office of the 1 st respondent and had explained as to how the property was properly valued and consequently, why the audit objection is not sustainable.

5. After nearly four years, the petitioners received a communication from the 3 rd respondent directing the petitioners to send their reply within a period of 21 days, failing which, they must pay the deficit stamp duty along with interest. The petitioners on receipt of the said notice from the 3 rd respondent sent a reply on 04.07.2011 through registered post. The specific stand taken by the petitioners is that there was absolutely no communication thereafter and all of a sudden, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by the 4 th respondent directing the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty along with interest failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed before this Court.

6. The 3 rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:

6. With regard to the averments made in Para 6 to 9 of the affidavit it is submitted that the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Saidapet, the 1st respondent, herein, made a reference under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp At, 1899 in his letter Sl.No.5/2007 dated.09-07-2007 since the property in question was undervalued. On receipt of the said reference, Form No.I notice was issued to the Petitioners by this respondent in No.2/2007/A1 dated.24-09-2007 to show cause why the value of the property should not be determined at the rate of Rs.1900/- per sq.ft and to collect the deficit stamp duty of Rs.96,000/- as proposed by the Joint Sub Registrar-II, Saidapet, the 1st respondent, herein. Since no reply was received from the Petitioners, this respondent determined the market value of the property at Rs.1900/- per sq.ft and demanded the payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs.96,000/- in final order No.Spl.R.No.A1/2/2007 dated. 22.05.08 and subsequent reminder was sent on 13.06.2011 (copy enclosed) in Spl.R.No. A1/2/2007. But the Petitioners without filing appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub section (5) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 sent representation dated.04-07-2011 to this respondent to revise the order which is impugned by the Petitioners, herein. This respondent respectfully submits that an authority who issued orders cannot revise his own orders under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The proper recourse for the Petitioners is to file only statutory appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as submitted supra. Since the Petitioners failed to exhaust the efficacious statutory remedy available under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. With regard to the averments made in Para 10 of the affidavit it is submitted that the Petitioners failed to submit their explanation to the Form No.I (show cause notice) notice defending their stand and instead met the Joint Sub RegistrarII, Saidapet, the 1st respondent, herein. The Petitioners thus failed to avail the chances given by this respondent.

8. With regard to the grounds made out by the Petitioners, this respondent submits as under.

i) This respondent denies ground (a) and (b) and submits that the Petitioners failed to reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent in Form No.I as prescribed in Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.

ii) with regard to ground (c) and (D) it is submitted that issuance of Form No.II -Provisional value fixation order arise only if the Petitioners sent defense statement with relevant documentary evidence to the Form No.I notice. In the instant case, since the Petitioners discarded the said Form No.I notice, the proper mode is to issue final orders.

iii) With regard to ground (e) it is submitted that the Petitioners sent representation to this respondent only after issuance of final order to revise the said orders. This respondent has not been empowered under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to revise the orders once issued. The Petitioner, if really aggrieved, the proper recourse is to file appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (5) of the Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Petitioner without exhausting the statutory appeal came before this Hon'ble Court by filing this writ petition which is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard Mr.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials available on record.

9. In the present case, the document was registered on the file of the 1 st respondent on 30.11.2006 in Document No.2470/2006. The Judgment of this Court in The District Collector, Erode District, Erode and two others vs. M.Ponnusamy reported in 2001 2 CTC 449 and S.Sivasubramaniam vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai – 600 028 and others reported in 2014 1 MLJ 500 [LQ/MadHC/1993/894] makes it very clear that the reference should be made under Section 47(1) of theimmediately after the registration or soon after the registration is completed and at any rate within three weeks from the date of completion of the registration of the documents. In the above judgments, since the reference was made much later, this Court was inclined to interfere with the reference that was made to the concerned authority for determining the deficit stamp duty.

10. The above judgments will squarely apply to the facts of the present case, since the document was registered in the year 2006 and the reference was made only on 09.07.2007, which is much beyond three weeks time that is stipulated for reference.

11. There is yet another ground which impels this Court to interfere with the proceedings of the respondents. A close look at the notice issued by the 3 rd respondent and also the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent shows that the action has been initiated under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. This power under Section 47-A(3) is a suo motu power that has been vested upon the Collector. This power obviously could not have been exercised by the 1 st respondent and the only manner in which the 1 st respondent could have made a reference to the 3 rd respondent is under Section 47-A(1) of the. That apart, after the notice was issued by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioners had given a detailed reply and that was not taken into consideration and the deficit stamp duty as determined by the 1 st respondent was fixed by the 3 rd respondent. Pursuant to the same, the 4 th respondent has initiated proceedings to recover the deficit stamp duty along with interest from the petitioners.

12. The proceedings initiated by the respondents suffers from serious procedural irregularities and hence, the same is vitiated. In view of the same, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the proceedings of the respondents initiated to collect the deficit stamp duty along with interest from the petitioners and accordingly, the impugned notice issued by the 3 rd respondent and the consequential notice issued by the 4 th respondent is hereby quashed.

13. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.