Heard.

2. Aggrieved by the demand of additional stamp duty on the document of sale executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, in favour of the petitioners herein and the consequential refusal to release the respective sale deeds of the petitioners already registered before the concerned Sub Registrar of Registration, for non payment of the additional stamp duty, the petitioners, individually, seek a writ of Mandamus to forbear the third respondent from demanding the additional stamp duty for the respective sale deeds of the petitioners and to direct the respondents to deliver them the said sale deeds registered before the third respondent.

3. Since the grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions and the relief sought for are common in nature, all these writ petitions were heard jointly with the consent of both parties.

4.1. Concedingly, the petitioners were allotted respective flats by the Corporation, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, in the year 1985, on lease cum sale agreement basis and the petitioners have paid their respective entire sale consideration in instalments and also got their sale deed duly executed by the Corporation before the concerned Sub Registrar Office as early as 1999, 2000 and 2001. But, instead of returning the respective sale deeds to the petitioners, the respondents served notice on them, demanding additional stamp duty on the basis of the market value of the property at the time of registration, initiating action against them under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

4.2. The petitioners and the similarly placed allottees formed an association as Tiruchy Navalpattu Police Colony Owners and Occupants Association and registered the same under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court dated 19.3.1998 made in W.P.Nos.15873 and 16833 of 1995, the said association represented to the third respondent on 29.8.2002 that the levy of additional stamp duty on the basis of market value of the property at the time of registration is incorrect, illegal, improper, and contrary to the decision in Padmavathi, S.P. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1997 (2) CTC 617 = 1997 (2) LW 579. However, the respondents, by letter dated 9.11.2001 informed the Association that the request made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be complied with. Hence the above writ petitions.

5. Mr.R. Krishnaswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that

(a) the impugned demand of additional stamp duty on the respective sale deeds is contrary to various decisions of this Court, viz.

(i) the order dated 19.3.1998 made in W.P.Nos.15873 and 16833 of 1995;

(ii) District Collector, Erode District Erode, v. M.Ponnusamy reported in 2001 (2) CTC 449 confirming the order dated 6.11.1997 made in W.P.Nos.11952 of 1997 batch, reported in 1999 (2) LW 231; and

(iii)Sukumaran, R. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 (2) CTC 329.

(b) the respondents have no jurisdiction to invoke Section 47-A(1) of the Act, unless they have reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is a subject matter of conveyance has not been duly set forth in the document, with a view to fraudulently evade the payment of proper stamp duty; and

(c) since the impugned sale deeds were executed by the Corporation, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking, there cannot be any room for under valuation of the property conveyed by the Corporation nor any fraudulent evasion or mala fide attached to such transaction.

6. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that

(a) the price fixed by the Corporation at the time of allotment is only a tentative cost and the same is not final, and therefore, the registering authority is entitled to charge stamp duty based on the market value