The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must follow the prescribed procedure for determining the market value under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, and the onus of proving undervaluation lies with the authorities.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 13.01.2011 in proceedings Pa.Mu.No.47297/N4/2008.

2. The brief facts of appellant's case are as follows:

(i) The land comprised in S.No.631/12 admeasuring to an extent of 20 cents situated at Oruthattu Village, Nilakottai Taluk, Nilakottai Sub- District, Dindigul District, originally belonged to one Thangaraj @ Thangasamy. Thereafter, the said Thangaraj @ Thangasamy and his son Seeni, sold the said punja land to the appellant and his brother Arunachalam, by means of a registered sale deed dated 09.07.2004, for a sale consideration of Rs.13,200/-, vide document No.1257/2004 on the file of the third respondent.

(ii) Thereafter, on 20.01.2005, the fourth respondent sent a notice to the appellant under Samadhan Scheme, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,103/-, as deficit stamp duty and a sum of Rs.21,755/- as deficit registration fees, by assessing the market value of the land as Rs.21,88,720/-.

(iii) Subsequently, since the appellant did not pay the deficit stamp duty, the document was sent to the second respondent and on receipt of the same, according to the appellant, without issuing notice to the appellant, merely recording that 'despite notice, the appellant did not appear', confirmed the order passed by the fourth respondent.

(iv) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in the said appeal, the first respondent, without appreciating the true facts, had passed the impugned order fixing the market value of the land, per square feet as Rs.251/-. Hence, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by filing this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. In the grounds of appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been raised:

“(i) Whether market value in respect of a land be fixed on the basis that adjacent properties have been converted as house site plots though the concerned land stands as punja land?

(ii) Whether subsequent developments be taken into consideration after presentation of document for registration?

(iii) Whether mere fact of difference in value stated in the sale deed dated 09.07.2004 and the market value per as warrant the respondent to invoke Section 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act?; and

(iv) Whether the respondents erred in not taking into consideration that when there is a doubt in respect of the market value mentioned in the sale deed, the guideline value is the prima facie material to ascertain the market value?”

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent failed to observe that the notification under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, is only a guideline for collection of revenue and the same cannot form basis for determination of the market value. He would further contend that the first respondent grossly erred in relying upon the Field Measurement Book for the purpose of fixation of market value in respect of the land in question.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the first respondent erred in taking into consideration the subsequent development of the locality, after the execution of the sale deed dated 09.07.2004. Further, the first respondent erred in observing that as the lands comprised in S.Nos.630, 634, 635 have been permitted to be registered as 'house sites' and therefore, the same principle should be applied for the subject property situated in S.No.631/12, for the reason that the said land still retains only as a punja land, learned counsel contended.

6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent erred in observing that the appellant had not raised any objection for fixation of the market value at Rs.251/-, for the reason that the appellant had attended the hearing on 30.09.2010 and submitted his explanations and objections clearly setting out that the market