JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This appeal is preferred against the orders passed Na.Ka.No.25078/N1/2017 dated 11.01.2025 on the file of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

2. According to the appellant company, it has registered 12 sale deeds before the Office of Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, the 5^th respondent herein, for registration of lands in S.Nos. 233/6, 238/5, 235/2, 233/1, 237/2, 235/11 situated at No.107/1 Sullerikadu Village, with stamp duty and registration value as per the guidelines notified at the time of registration. After the registration, the documents were assigned. While so, the 5^th respondent, without any basis, authority, jurisdiction and reasons, referred the documents under Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899. In the corresponding year, the guideline value was revised to Rs.75,000/- per cent. Despite purchasing vacant land from the vendor based on this cent rate and presenting 12 sale deeds for registration across various survey numbers and dates, the 5^th respondent incorrectly admitted the documents using square foot rate without visiting the land. It is further submitted that due to the illegal withholding of the registered documents, i.e, 12 sale deeds, the appellant lost genuine buyers and customers, joint venture project developers that made them lose several crores of rupees on their projects. Aggrieved against the inaction of the 5^th respondent, namely, SRO, Thiruporur, a Writ Petition was filed in W.P.No.8930/2015, this Court issued directions to return the documents against which the Authorities preferred appeal in W.A. No.1317 of 2015 which was also dismissed. The appellant submits that, in spite of the directions issued by this Court, the authorities failed to abide and so the appellant had no other option except to succumb to the illegal demands of the IG Stamps, DRO and District Collector to pay the difference excess amount of Rs.15,000/- per cent for immediate release of the documents, by paying the difference of the stamp duty and registration fees beyond the guideline value under protest and objections. The appeal preferred by the appellants before the 2^nd respondent, namely, the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer (Stamps), the Inspector General of Registration, was dismissed after a lapse of 9 years. Hence, the present appeal is preferred.

3. Mr.S. Mukunth, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr.R.Gopinath, the learned counsel on record for the appellant would submit that, the representative of the appellant repeatedly explained to the 5^th respondent that, the land purchased was not a lay out and should be calculated at the cent rate. However, due to the 5^th respondent's apparent ego and alleged demand of money, the documents were mischievously sent under Section 47A(1) of the Act. No notice was issued for the proposed reference nor any hearing was conducted. Even without affording an opportunity of being heard, on the action detriment to the interest of appellant company, the documents were sent for computation of the value and recovery of the deficit stamp duty and registration charges. It is further submitted that, the dry lands in the above mentioned survey numbers have various extents, registered on different dates, showing the value of the consideration as per the guideline values fixed by virtue of G.O.Ms. No.75 dated 01.06.2010, which were based on the recommendations of the 2^nd respondent herein by letters dated 15.12.2006 and 18.12.2006 vide letter No.26269/C2/05 and the same was published in the issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 01.06.2010 by notifying the Rules in the Stamp Act, 1899 (Central II of 1899). Based on the estimation and revision of the market value and guidelines of the properties, the land in the above survey numbers was fixed at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per cent, which was accepted by the appellant. While so, the 5^th respondent intentionally and deliberately applied square foot rate