The value of the property for stamp duty purposes should be based on reliable evidence and proper reasons, and the value mentioned in the document for registration should be considered correct.

1. The appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order made in Pa.Mu.No.48206.B4/2004, dated 09.01.2006, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Inspector General of Registration-cum-Chief Revenue Controlling Authority, Chennai reversing the order made in Ka.Tha.Pa.No.32 of 2003, dated 28.06.2004 on the file of the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) at Virudhunagar.

2. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. On a perusal of the records would reveal that the appellant had purchased a property measuring to an extent of 4.50 acres in S.No.130/1 in Inam Chettikulam village of Srivilliputhur Taluk. The above said property was purchased by him for a sum of Rs.3,36,650/- and paid stamp duty of Rs.40,410/-. The concerned Sub-Registrar/third respondent herein after registering the above said sale deed referred the document to the second respondent since the third respondent feels that the above said value of the property mentioned in the document is below the guideline value and for fixation of correct market value for the purpose of stamp duty.

4. The second respondent passed an order on 28.06.2004 and fixed the value of the entire property as Rs.6,18,300/- and directed the appellant to pay the stamp duty of Rs,33,786/-. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the second respondent, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent and the first respondent passed an order on 9.1.2006 in which the appellate authority has held that the value of the property for the purpose of registration is fixed at Rs.1 lakh per acre and also Rs.30,000/- for well and Rs.15,000/- for pumpset and directed to collect the stamp duty accordingly. Aggrieved over the above said finding, the appellant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that both the first and second respondents have not properly considered the contentions of the appellant and also without any basis enhanced and fixed the value of the property for registration. Therefore, the above said orders are illegal and also perverse.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the second respondent correctly considered the value of the property at the time of registration of the document on the basis of the guideline value. Further in the appeal filed by the appellant, the first respondent has also discussed all the facts, particularly, considered the earlier document registered in document No.2759 of 2001 wherein for one acre, the market value is fixed as Rs.63,000/- and also rejected the report of the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps), Virudhunagar, wherein the value is fixed as Rs.80,000/- per acre and correctly considered all other factors and fixed as Rs.1 lakh per acre for registration of the document.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, both the second respondent and also the first respondent has not fixed the value based on any reliable documentary evidence and also not stated any proper reasons to fix the value. The order of the first respondent itself clearly reveal that as per the document No.2759 of 2001, the value of the property arrived at only Rs.63,000/- per acre. But the Special Deputy Collector(Stamps) after assessing the value and considering the earlier document registered, the above said authority filed a report in which fixed and enhanced the value as Rs.80,000/- per acre. But without any acceptable reasons, the first respondent has fixed Rs.1 lakh per acre. Therefore the above said findings of both the authorities are perverse and also illegal as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the above said circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the