The impugned order, dated 02.07.2014, passed by the third respondent (Inspector General of Registration/Chief Revenue Control Officer), a) giving a finding that the sale deed dated 07.03.2012 exeucted in favour of the appellant is a double sale transaction and that the document ought to have been impounded for non-payment of double stamp duty; b) rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant without providing opportunity of hearing.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The property situated in T.S.No.1 Block No.9, Ward No.A in Namakkal Town, measuring an extent of 15350 sq. Metre, originally belonged to one G.S.Rajendiran (Son of Sundaram) (Guardian of Jenagan R.Shelu), Vasantha (wife of Sundaram), Rajeswaran (son of G.S.Rajendiran). The appellant's mother negotiated with them to purchase the property and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.63 lakhs. The family of Rajendiran executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant's mother. Based on the power of attorney, a registered agreement of sale was executed by the appellant's mother in favour of the appellant's sister J.Nithya, on 04.10.2010 (Power of attorney by the original title holder in favour of the appellant's mother).

3. Since the agreement of sale and the power of attorney were in favour of two different persons, both of them joined in the execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant and it was Registered as Document No.780/2009. The first respondent, after registering the document, referred the same under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act to the second respondent for determination of market value of the property.

4. The second respondent issued Form-I notice on 29.03.2012 fixing the market value of the property as Rs.1,11,96,300/- and demanding Rs.12,87,408/- towards stamp duty. The appellant gave a detailed reply, setting forth his objections. Thereafter, the market value was refixed at Rs.1,00,77,134/- and the stamp duty payable was Rs.16,12,353/- even the refixation was not correct and explaining the ground that the appellant demanded refund of Rs.63,460/-. The first respondent directed the appellant to file the appeal before the third respondent.

5. Accordingly, an appeal was filed under Section 47-A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1882, to the third respondent, on 04.06.2013.

6. The third respondent, who is expected to determine the market value, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, gave a finding that the Sub-Registrar should have impounded the document on the ground that the sale deed amount to a double sale and stamp duty should have been collected for double the sale consideration.

6.1. The order passed by the second respondent has been set-aside, not on the grounds raised by the appellant, but on the basis of his own finding that the document ought to have been registered for double the value of sale consideration treating the sale as double sale; as the order of the second respondent had been set aside, there are no grounds to consider this appeal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This order is being challenged in this civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act:-

“47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., under valued how to be dealt with: -- (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement), has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector, for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.

(2) On receipt of reference under sub-sec. (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a re