The main legal point established is that the sale under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is a private sale, and the registering authority can refer the matter for valuation under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioner's failure to appeal the adjudication order precludes the claim for a refund.

1. The writ petition is for a direction against the third respondent, the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, to refund of excess stamp duty of Rs.3,05,407/-collected from the petitioner in respect of sale deed registered on 16.05.2002 as document No.1117/2002 relating to the property situated at Door No.5 (old No.3), Balaji Avenue I Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

2. Thepetitioner has purchased the above said property in a public auction conducted by a M/s.Park Town Benefit Fund Limited as a mortgagee exercising powers under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs as a highest bidder. The Benefit Fund Limited being mortgagee has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2002 which was registered as stated above and the said value has also been approved by the Income-tax Department.

3. It is stated that the third respondent has demanded further amount of stamp duty of Rs.4,48,981/-based on the guideline value maintained by him. Ultimately, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs.3,05,407/- on the guideline value while the value for which he has purchased in the open auction was only Rs.45 lakhs for which necessary stamp duty has been paid. It is stated that the petitioner was forced to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,407/- subsequent to the additional demand of Rs.4,48,981/-for the purpose of getting the release of the document. Thereafter, the petitioner has caused a legal notice to the third respondent on 25.07.2002 and filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is filed on the ground that he was the highest bidder in a public auction from the M/s.Park Town Benefit Fund Limited who has brought the property by exercising its power under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the value of Rs.45 lakhs. Therefore, the value for the assessment of stamp duty and the application of the guideline value is not proper and that inasmuch as the petitioner has purchased in a public auction, there is no possibility of suppression of value and therefore, the levy of stamp duty, based on the guideline value prescribed by the third respondent registering authority is not valid in law.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent while it is admitted that the petitioner has purchased the property in an auction which was held as per Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act by the mortgagee M/s.Park Town Benefit Fund Limited for Rs.45 lakhs, on a verification from the guideline register, it was found that the value of the property is much more and therefore, based on the guideline value, the stamp duty was arrived at and on that basis, the petitioner has also paid the value. Simply because the Income-tax Department has approved the value, it does not mean that it is equal to guideline value. Therefore, it is stated by the third respondent that the value of the property on the basis of the guideline value arrived at by the registering authority is perfectly valid in law and the guideline register supplied to assist the registering authority to decide as to whether the value has been properly and truly set out in the document. It is also stated that the auction conducted by the mortgagee by virtue of the power under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be equated to that of a public auction in respect of by the authorities like that of the housing board etc.,

5. It is stated that the matter was referred under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for proper valuation and the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 were followed and notice in Form-I was sent and served to the petitioner on 25.06.2002 and final order came to be passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai on 25.06.2002 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,83,517/- as deficit stamp duty. The market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,285/- per square feet and the petitioner has not raised any objection. It is