The appellant cannot challenge the guideline value before the respondents and must approach a different forum if the guideline value framed by the Government was incorrect.

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order, of the third respondent/Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, passed in Mu.Mu.No.18184/No.1/2004 dated 28.04.2004, confirming the order passed by the second respondent/the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.C.P.No.42 dated 06.02.2004.

2. Aggrieved by the third respondents order, the appellant has preferred this appeal .before this Court.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows;-

The appellant has purchased an agricultural land in Survey Nos.68/1, 73/1 and 75/1, Nethapakkam Village, Chithamur Sub registration District. The said sale deed has been registered pending document No.36 of 2001 dated 02.05.2001, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Madurantakkam, the first respondent in the appeal. The appellant has submitted that he has been asked to pay deficit of stamp duty of Rs.99,885/- to release the document, vide order No.Ta.Ka.No.3 of 2003, dated 04.04.2003. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant made an appeal before the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurantagam, who received the appeal and passed an order stating that on the basis of the Sub-registrars guideline land value fixed for the land, the appellant has to pay Rs.3/- square feet. As such, the appellant is liable to pay Rs.93,912/- as deficit stamp duty as per Indian Stamp Act under Section 47(A)(1).

4. The appellants contention before the sub-registrar/first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer/second respondent and the Inspector General of Registration/third respondent are similar and as follows;-

The property was purchased in Survey Nos.68/1, 73/1 and 75/1, Nethapakkam Village, under the registration jurisdiction of the first respondent. The said property was an agricultural land. The inspection by the registration department was made when the paddy was under harvest, in the said land. The property in and around this land is also agricultural land. Active agricultural activity has been going on in the said purchased property of the appellant. The adjacent land was purchased by a person under document No.916 of 2001 dated 212. 2001, which was registered by the first respondent and the same was released to the person concerned, without any query. The appellant had purchased the remaining portion of the above said land from the same owner. The execution of the sale deed and the registration for the property being done on the same day by the same owner does not have any change in the characteristic of the property to have higher guideline value. The same vendor has also sold 7 acres and 81 cents in various survey numbers adjacent to the property of the appellant. The appellant has purchased the property only for the purpose of agricultural operations. The land value shown as per the records in the registration district is totally high, imaginary and without following any procedure or referring to the previous records. The property would not fetch more than Rs.150 to Rs.200 per cent, even after three years of the purchase.

5. The appellant has particularly laid emphasis on the point that the valuation fixed in the guideline registry is not proper and not based on reality. The value shown in the guideline and value of the excess stamp called for is more or less equal to the market price for which the property has been purchased. The show cause notice issued to the appellant is based on extraordinary rates entered in the records.

6. At the time of inspection of the said property, the appellants presence was not sought. Without verifying any records, the Tahsildar had been deputed for valuation and a conclusion regarding land value was arrived at unilaterally. The show cause notice says that the property was valued on square feet basis, but the property has been purchased for agricultural purpose and as such, the property cannot be valued on square feet basis.

7. The appellant is usi