IMPORTANT POINT
The exercise of suo motu powers under Section 47A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act requires a clear demonstration of how the interests of revenue are prejudiced by prior orders, and failure to provide such justification renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

[PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 A (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to set aside the order proceedings No.56779/E1/2016 dated 7.6.2022 passed by the respondent.]

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 7.6.2022 passed by the respondent in exercising the suo motu powers under Section 47A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act”).

2. The petitioners jointly purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2013. The sale deed was registered as Document No.9717/2013, by the Sub Registrar, Gudiyatham. At the time of registration, the Sub Registrar had directed the petitioners to pay the stamp duty at Rs.76,464/- per cent when the guideline value was prevailing at the rate of Rs.12,775 per cent. Besides, the petitioners also paid the registration charges. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Collector initiated proceedings under Section 47A(2) of the Act and directed the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.32,186/- and the registration charges of Rs.4,600/- by order dated 13.3.2014. This order was complied with by the petitioners and thereafter, the original sale deed was also released in favour of the petitioners.

3. After nearly 4 ½ years, the respondent issued a notice dated 5.3.2018, exercising powers under Section 47A(6) of the Act. The petitioners were directed to show cause as to why the stamp duty must not be fixed at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq.ft. This notice became a subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.7717 of 2018. The Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 1.3.2021 mainly on the ground that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to submit their objections and therefore there is violation of principles of natural justice. This Court also made it clear that it will be left open to the respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 47A(6) of the Act and proceed further in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the above order, the respondent issued a notice dated 18.10.2021. This notice was once again put to challenge in W.P.No.25790 of 2021. This Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioners to submit their explanation within a period of two weeks for the notice that was issued by the respondent. In the light of the above order, the petitioners submitted their objections dated 9.12.2021 and had also appeared for enquiry before the respondent. The respondent through the impugned order dated 7.6.2022 has fixed the value of the land at Rs.175 per sq.ft and directed the petitioners to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration expenses within 60 days. This order has been put to challenge in this appeal filed under Section 47A(10) of the Stamp Act.

5. Heard Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader for the respondent.

6. The primary ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent no where in the impugned order has indicated as to how the interests of the revenue is being affected. It was further contended that the respondent has gone ahead and fixed the rate at Rs.175/- per sq.ft mainly on the ground that the property will be converted as house sites in future The learned counsel submitted that as on the date when the sale deed was executed, the property in question was an agricultural land. That should be the criteria while deciding the issue and after nearly 9 years, the respondent cannot assume that the lands have not been put to use and therefore it will be utilised as house sites. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submissions, relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the this Court in Sundaram Medical Foundation v. Inspector General of Registration and Ors reported in MANU/TN/2676/2018. The learned counsel also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Pushpa Sareen v. Sate of U.P reported in