The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority determining market value must consider evidence presented by the parties and act in accordance with the legal principles established in previous judgments.

1. The Appeal is preferred by the Appellant under Section 47-A(10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, against the order of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-600 004, the First Respondent herein, dated 14.9.2005 in proceeding No.65639/N2/2004 modifying the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem, Namakkal & Dharmapuri Districts, Salem, the Second Respondent herein, in S.R. No.146/02/KG-I, dated 30.4.2003.

2. The Appellant purchased the property measuring a total extent of 3060 sq.ft., with building thereon bearing Door No.32F, R.S. No.698 of Poganapalli Village, Krishnagiri panchayat, for sale consideration of Rs.4,20,000/- from one K.C.Krishnan and others under a Sale Deed dated 10.6.2002 and the same was presented for registration before the Joint Sub-Registrar-III, Krishnagiri, the Third Respondent herein and the said Sale Deed was registered as Document NO.856 of 2002. The Appellant paid the stamp duty of Rs.50,400/-The Third Respondent was of the view that the market value in the document is not true. Therefore, he determined the market value at Rs.2,33,694/- and referred the document to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Salem, the Second Respondent herein for the purpose of determining the market value. The Second Respondent after careful consideration of the market value determined by the Third Respondent herein and the original document of the subject land, fixed the market value at Rs.525/- per Sq.ft., and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,13,024/-Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred an Appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, the First Respondent herein. The said First Respondent fixed the value at Rs.582/-per sq.ft. Aggrieved by that order, the Appellant filed the present Appeal.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently contended that the order passed by the First Respondent, enhancing the market value fixed by the Second Respondent from Rs.525 to Rs.582/- per sq.ft., is illegal without any basis and justification as there is no power under the Act to enhance the market value. He further contended that the First Respondent ought not to have relied on the guideline value for the purpose of fixing the market value at Rs.582/- the guideline value is not the market value and in support of his contention he has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.Sai Bharathi V. J. Jayalitha, 2003 (4) CTC 577 (SC): 2004 SCC (Crl) 377: 2004 (2) SCC 9 and V.N. Devadoss v. The Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and others, 2009 (3) LW 236. In view of the above, the order passed by the First Respondent is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent submitted that the First Respondent has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and correctly fixed the market value at Rs.582/-. Therefore, the order passed by the First Respondent is in accordance with law. It is a question of fact. Hence, the same has to be confirmed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, the Second Respondent has fixed the market value at Rs.525/- per sq.ft. There is no detail as to how the amount was arrived at. But to the great surprise, the First Respondent increased the market value from Rs.525/- to Rs.582/- per sq.ft. by taking into consideration the guideline value prevailing on the date of the registration. The said value fixed by the First Respondent is only on the basis of the guideline value that too without giving any opportunity to the Appellant before fixing the enhanced value at Rs.582/- The Apex Court in the cases of R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalathitha, 2003 (4) CTC 577 (SC): 2004 SCC (Crl) 377: 2004(2) SCC 9, has considered the scope of guideline value in paragraphs 22 and 24