1. The 'Samadhan Scheme', as mooted out by the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 31.10.2011, offered remission of 1/3rd of the difference of stamp duty, between the duty already paid and what is chargeable on the value of the properties as proposed by the Registering Officer on the basis of guideline value, in respect of documents, where determination of market value was pending consideration under Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, subject to the intending beneficiaries, availing the scheme within certain time frame.

1.1. This scheme was pertaining to instruments pending for determination of the market value and proper stamp duty payable thereon, as per Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

1.2. This scheme was mooted out, in order to enable the public to get back the registered documents quickly and also to enable the Government to realise the Revenue immediately.

1.3. By virtue of this notification issued, this scheme was made applicable to instruments in respect of which appeals have been preferred to the High Court under Section 10 of Section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, and are pending in the High Court, as on 31.07.2011.

2. By virtue of the sale deed, dated 02.09.2004, in Registration Nos.6195 and 6196 of 2004, the appellant, Sushil Kumar Chokkani, purchased properties in S.F.No.650 in Thottipalayam Village, in Tiruppur Taluk, located within the jurisdiction of Joint-1 Sub-Registrar Office, Tiruppur, where the market value of the property set-forth was Rs.12,50,000/- in each of the documents. On a reference made by the Registering Authority, the Special Deputy Collector determined the market value at Rs.44,78,915/-and Rs.45,18,137/- respectively.

2.1. Challenging the same, appeal was filed by the appellant before Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration fixed the market value of the property at Rs.408/- per sq.ft., as against the value fixed at Rs.346/- per sq.ft., by the District Revenue Officer (Stamps). Challenging this finding, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed before this Court.

3. In the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellant has sought for, setting aside the order of the Inspector General of Registration (Appellate Authority), dated 13.02.2006 or alternatively, seeking direction to the respondents to give the benefit of 'Samadhan Scheme' announced by the first respondent, in respect of the documents referred to above.

4. The appellant herein has already sent a representation, dated 15.11.2011, seeking the benefit under 'Samadhan Scheme'. The Inspector General of Registration has sent a reply, dated 03.08.2012, intimating that the request for refund of stamp duty is not feasible. This reply, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, has no relevance, as the appellant did not ask for refund of the stamp duty, but has only requested for consideration of his claim under the 'Samadhan Scheme'. It is further pointed out that the reply by the Inspector General of Registration will not amount to rejection of claim under 'Samadhan Scheme'.

4.1. This Court is of the view that from the nature of reply sent, viz-a-viz, the nature of request made, the reply will not amount to rejection of the benefit under 'Samadhan Scheme'.

4.2. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.3,89,210/-towards compliance of the interim order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2006 in CMA No.1882 of 2006. This amount, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is 60% of the difference between the stamp duty, which is paid in the instrument at the time of registration and which is the stamp duty payable, as determined by the authorities. This fact is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate (CS) appearing for the respondents.

4.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, those who are intending to avail the benefit of 'Samadhan Scheme' is expected to pay, 2/3rd of the deficit stamp duty payable, along with 1% o