ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in the impugned order dated 12.12.2011 vide Pa.Mu.No.61460/P1/2009 on the file of the first respondent and quashing the same and further directing the first respondent to release the deed of assignment of debt.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent entered into a loan agreement with one A.L.Vadivelu. On 25.10.2000, as per the said loan agreement, the third respondent contributed loan to him to the tune of Rs.25,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores only). As per the said loan agreement dated 25.10.2000, the said A.L.Vadivelu agreed to assign rights against assets and properties which may devolve upon him after settlement of the deposit holders and other creditors to the third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent could not recover the loan contributed by it from the said A.L.Vadivelu. Therefore, difficulties encountered by the third respondent herein in recovering the loan amount from the said A.L.Vadivelu agreed to assign the debts in favour of the petitioner.

3. The third respondent executed a deed of conveyance as assignment of debts dated 26.03.2009 thereby assigning the debts recovery rights to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the said debt. As per the assignment of debts the purchase consideration for the assignment of debts was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and the same was paid to the third respondent. Thereafter, it was presented for registration. The second respondent impounded the assignment of debts under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and issued a notice dated 11.08.2009 thereby seeking as to why stamp duty should not be calculated on the entire debt amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/-.

4. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation stating that the Article 23 Note 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual, stamp duty chargeable on an instrument of assignment of debt is only on the purchase consideration. However, the second respondent rejected the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed an order on 09.11.2009 holding that the stamp duty is to be charged on the entire debt amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the first respondent. The first respondent also confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by an impugned order dated 12.12.2011 vide Pa.Mu.No.61460/P1/2009.

5. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the sole ground in the light of the provisions under Section 47A of Tamil Nadu Stamp Act, 1967. The debt of assignment ought not to have been impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act when an amendment of Section 47A is specifically enacted to deal with under-valued instrument of conveyance. As per Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act empowers a person in charge of a public office to impound a document only if it is not duly stamped. Whereas, adjudicated upon what is the market value of the instrument of conveyance can be done only under Section 47A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Act.

6. He further submitted that the debt was of the year 2000 and the third respondent assigned the same to the petitioner since the third respondent was unable to recover the debt amount. Unfortunately, the first respondent misinterpreted Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. The market value of the property which is subject matter of conveyance can only be the price which a willing buyer is prepared to pay to a willing seller. The assignment of debt will have to takers in popular mercantile sense. In the light of the Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1980 Madras 171 in the case of The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and another Vs. K.S.Dwarkanathan held that a decree being a final pronouncement of a cause of action, which is a legally enforceable document valued by the Court for the p