The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the appellants to pay stamp duty on the actual value of the property as per the sale certificates, and the authority of the registering authorities to determine the correct value of the property for stamp duty purposes.

B. RAJENDRAN, J

1. Both the writ appeals arise out of the orders dated 09.06.2010 made in WP Nos. 30398 and 30399 of 2008 passed by the learned single Judge and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts relate to both the writ appeals are that originally, the property in dispute was owned by one Jawahar Mills Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'Mill'. The Mill availed loan facility with Indian Overseas Bank, Salem by mortgaging the property in question. In view of the default committed by the Mill in repayment of the loan amount, Indian Overseas Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) by issuing notice under Section 13 (2) and possession of the property was also taken over by the bank. Thereafter, on 29.03.2004, the bank issued a publication in newspaper inviting tenders for sale of the property on 30.03.2005. In the tender called for by the bank, one V.S. Murugesan submitted his offer for purchase of the property and he was declared as the highest bidder for Rs.7,00.70,007/-. On being declared as the highest bidder, the said V.S. Murugesan deposited 10% of the amount as earnest money deposit namely Rs.70,07,007/- with the bank. Thereafter, the said Murugesan did not pay the balance amount to the bank. Even as per the admission of the parties, the said V.S. Murugesan had entered into a contract for assignment of his right to purchase the property with one B. Sivakumar on 03.10.2005, appellant in W.A. No. 2407 of 2010. Thereafter, on 20.06.2006, the assignee B. Sivakumar in turn entered into another agreement assigning his right to purchase the property in favour of the appellants in W.A. No. 2708 of 2010. Thereafter, WP No. 37139 of 2005 was filed before this Court by the said V.S. Murugan seeking for a direction to deposit the balance sum of Rs.6,30,63,000/- together with interest at 19.5% per annum with monthly rest from 13.05.2005 till the final payment and to direct the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem to issue sale certificate in his favour. By order dated 16.11.2006, this Court passed an order directing the Indian Overseas Bank, Salem Branch to issue sale certificate in favour of the nominee of the said V.S. Murugan, whose tender was accepted by the bank. Subsequently, on 18.11.2006, a sum of Rs.9,30,00,000/- was deposited before the Indian Overseas Bank In the meantime, as against this order dated 16.11.2006 in WP No. 37139 of 2005, an appeal was filed by the Union of the Mill in W.A. No. 50 of 2007 before the Division Bench of this Court. Before the Division Bench of this Court, a compromise was entered into between the parties and pursuant to the same, it was informed before this Court that the bank would issue sale certificate in favour of the purchaser or his nominees, which was also accepted by the Division Bench of this Court as it was only a compromise. Pursuant to such compromise, on 24.12.2007, two sale certificates namely Certificate Nos. 5 of 2007 and 2 of 2007 respectively were issued in favour of the appellants by the bank. On the strength of the sale certificates, the appellants presented the sale certificates for registration before the Sub-Registrar, Suramangalam, the second respondent in these writ appeals. The second respondent, returned the sale certificate presented for registration on the ground that the document does not contain stamp duty for its face value and directed the holders of the sale certificate to pay stamp duty for the face value. Challenging the same, the appellants herein have filed W.P. Nos. 30398 and 30399 of 2008 before this Court by contending that since the property was purchased by them in an auction sale, they need not pay stamp duty inasmuch as the sale certificate was issued as per the directions of this Court. Further, the second respondent, by the proceedings, which was impugned in the writ petition