ORDER :

Prayer in W.P.No.4783 of 2012:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the 1st respondent's provisional order in NaKa.Cee.Pa.239/08/A4 dated 18.08.2009 together with the Final Order in Na.Ka.Cee.Pa.239/08/A4/2010 dated 12.10.2009 and to quash the same with a direction to the 1st respondent to expunge the endorsements made on the original registered document pertaining to the subject matter of the petitioner's land, by affording an opportunity as per the rules.

Prayer in W.P.No.4784 of 2012:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the 1st respondent's provisional order in NaKa.Cee.Pa.240/08/A4 dated 18.08.2009 together with the Final Order in Na.Ka.Cee.Pa.240/08/A4/2010 dated 12.10.2009 and to quash the same with a direction to the 1st respondent to expunge the endorsements made on the original registered document pertaining to the subject matter of the petitioner's land, by affording an opportunity as per the rules.

These writ petitions are filed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the 1st respondent's provisional order in Na.Ka.Cee.Pa.239/08/A4 and NaKa.Cee.Pa.240/08/A4 dated 18.08.2009 together with the Final Order in Na.Ka.Cee.Pa.239/08/A4/2010 and Na.Ka.Cee.Pa.240/08/A4/2010 dated 12.10.2009 (respectively) and to quash the same with a direction to the 1st respondent to expunge the endorsements made on the original registered document pertaining to the subject matter of the petitioner's land, by affording an opportunity as per the rules.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased an agricultural nanja land comprised in Survey No.140/4 by way of two registered sale deeds dated 20.10.2008 and presented them for registration before the second respondent. On receipt of the same, the second respondent registered the sale deeds vide Document Nos.10877, 10878 of 2008. As per the guideline value, the petitioner valued the property at the rate of Rs.5000/- per cent and accordingly, he has paid Rs.5,10,000/- and Rs.3,65,000/- as sale consideration and paid the stamp duty at 8% namely Rs.40,800/- and Rs.29,200/- respectively for the sale deeds, with required registration fees and other charges. When the petitioner went to the second respondent for collection of documents, he was directed to pay the deficit stamp duty, applying the guideline value applicable for approved housing sites at Rs.91,482/- per cent. However, the second respondent has not furnished any written communication with valid documentary evidence for the said claim.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when once the second respondent has completed the registration, it is not open to him to refer the matter for adjudication without any material to the effect that the subject matter of the document which had been registered before him was grossly undervalued with an intention to evade stamp duty. The procedure contemplated under 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation Instruments) Rules, 1968, was violated by the first respondent, and arbitrarily and mechanically, the provisional order was passed determining the market value of the subject property.

4. The first respondent did not even send a notice to the petitioner inviting objection on the date of hearing and the date of spot inspection. Had the first respondent conducted spot enquiry, the petitioner would have physically demonstrated the fact that the subject matter is only an agricultural land. Therefore, the first respondent failed to conduct any enquiry as prescribed under the rules. The first respondent also failed to communicate the provisional order dated 18.08.2009 with notice in Form-II thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections for s