Once a document is registered, the Registering Authority has no power to withhold the same, and the property owner has the right to own and retain the property.

1. Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

2. According to the Petitioner, she purchased a property comprised in S.No.26/3 and S.No.25/1, admeasuring 278.70 Sq.Meter (3,000 Sq.feet) of vacant site, situated at Periyapuliyampatti (East), Aruppukkottai, from one Murugan, who is the power agent of Radhakrishnan, for a valid consideration. It is the stand of the Petitioner that as per guideline value of that area, she had remitted a sum of Rs.1,82,000/-, as Stamp Duty, at Rs.200/- per Square Feet, whereas, the 2nd Respondent had insisted her to pay a Stamp Duty at Rs.400/-per Square Feet, taking note of the market value pertains to the nearby area, called Meenambikai Nagar, which is predominant and very faraway from her property.

3. It is the stand of the Petitioner that during the year 2004, when a lay out was formed over the above said property, the guideline value for the said property was Rs.25/- per Square Feet and thereafter, the said property was divided into house sites. Even during the year 2010, one of such house site in the said lay out was sold at Rs.25/-per Square Feet. Subsequently, upto 2012, the Stamp Duty for the property purchased by her was registered at Rs.45/-per Square Feet, as per guideline value.

4. The Learned Counsel projects an argument that in view of the instruction given by the Registration Department, vide No.12181/G4/87, dated 25.01.1988, the value of one particular survey number should not be taken for another survey number for fixing stamp value. Besides in view of another instruction of Registration Department No.43781/L1/1990, dated 20.11.1990, though many streets comprised in one survey number, the higher value of one particular street cannot be applied for another particular street.

5. That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Registration Department issued another Instruction in Ref.No.19136/L1/1998, dated 22.04.1998, in and by which, a sale deed registered with higher value cannot be taken into subsequent document. The guideline value alone should be taken into account and as such, it is not open to the Respondents to take the guideline value and market value, which relates to the Meenambikai Nagar for her sale deed, which are no way connected with that area.

6. Apart from the above, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to take a stand that when a document is presented for Registration, if the Authority registering such a document has a reason to believe that market value of the property has not been truly set forth, he may after registering such a document refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereof.

7. In fact, the plea of the Petitioner is that the Registering Authority has not vested with the power to demand payment of additional duty nor he has got any power to postpone the registration of the document. Further, his only authority / power is to make an endorsement on such registered document regarding valuation, refer the matter to the Collector for determination of proper Stamp Duty payable thereon and return the document to the person entitled to receive such document.

8. Moreover, in terms of Section 61 of the Registration Act, 1908, once the registration of document is completed, thereafter the document / Sale Deed shall be returned to the person, who presented the same for registration. In the instant case on hand, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Registering Authority / the 2nd Respondent is not followed the aforesaid procedures and the 2nd Respondent is unnecessarily kept the document of the Petitioner, without returning the same, despite registration of such document is over.

9. In effect, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner i